Dogmatic Theology

God has revealed Himself to man in different ways. Scripture is one of the main
sources of divine revelation. The experience of the Church with her Lord Jesus Christ from
the very incarnation also is equally important. The Church developed Theology depending
on her experiences and the divine revelation by the working of the Holy Spirit. The holy
Church has the right and authority to interpret and teach about the divine revelation. Such
teachings of the Church are called doctrines or dogma. This course is an attempt to deal with
some of the major and relevant dogmatic principles and issues from an Oriental Orthodox
point of view. Analysis of the development of Doctrine also is dealt with a historico-
theological approach.

1. Etymological Root and definition

The Greek word  (Dogma) literally means „opinion.‟ This word has another
meaning, „that which seems good.‟ It was later used by the classical Greek authors as
technical term either to the philosophical writings or to the decrees of public authorities. In
the second sense it is used in the LXX and in the New Testament, e.g. Dan.2:13; Acts.16:4;
Eph.2:15 etc., whereas the patristic use developed from the first meaning. Although the
Greek word dogma appears five times in the New Testament, the only passage which it has
its connotation is Acts 16:4; and there it would seem to be primarily ethical and ceremonial
decisions, rather than doctrinal ones, that the writer has in mind. In the writings of St.
Ignatius of Antioch (Magn. 13), word Dogma acquires a closer meaning to the present one,
which is also evident in Origen and other Fathers. But only when the councils of the Church
actually began to formulate doctrine could the term began to acquire the official significance
it now possess. Dogmatics or Dogmatic Theology can be defined as the organized and
systematic presentation of the dogmas of the Christian Church. In this course we follow a
historico-theological approach deals with the development of Dogmas of the church
analysing the circumstances and background.

1
2. Sources of Dogma
The ultimate source of „Dogma‟ is the self-revelation of God Himself. By the
incarnation, God revealed Himself completely to the creation. (Heb.1:1). But our
understanding is incomplete. Knowing God is an ongoing process for man.According to the
Orthodox Churches the dogma is preserved in the Tradition, which includes the Holy Bible.
The Holy Bible is the nucleus and measuring rod of the tradition, because it contains the
living word of God. And it was formed out of the primary experience and understanding the
Apostolic community. The Church, which is the living body of Christ interprets and explains
the mystery of God in accordance with the guidance given by the Holy Spirit. „Tradition‟
includes oral traditions, liturgical texts, patristic writings, canons, creeds, and practices in the
Church.
Tradition of the Church contains many things which are not in the Bible. The Bible
itself testifies that it is not complete. [Jn.20:30; 21:25]. The Tradition of Church always
stands in accordance with the Holy Bible and never contains anything against the doctrine of
the Bible. The Church cannot accept a tradition or practice which contradicts the teachings in
the Holy Bible.

3. Revelation,Faithand Interpretation
Revelation is the basis and content of Christian faith. Apart from God‟s self-
revelation there would be no knowledge of God and no Christian faith. In other words we
can say, what God has revealed about himself constitute the content of our knowledge and
faith. The 'revelation' refers to both the act of revealing and the content of what is revealed.
According to St. Ephrem, one of the prominent Syrian Church Fathers of fourth century, the
nature (universe) and Scripture are two great fountains of revelation. He explains incarnation
of God as the key to open those fountains. Creation is the outcome of the spoken word of
God and Scripture is the word of God recorded in human Languages. Incarnation is the
ultimate self-revelation of God into the history. Incarnation is the perfection of all
revelations. It can be called the crown of revelation.

2
3.1. Revelation as a Personal Communication
We can say that revelation is a communication between God, the absolute infinite
Person and human beings limited and finite persons. In the process of revelation the infinite
person God came down and used finite things, language and methods of communication to
make the revelation real and fruitful. The revelation becomes fruitful and meaningful when it
communicates the idea of God to the limited capacity of humanity. As one human person can
be known through his words and deeds, God also reveals His self through the words and
deeds while being both transcendent and immanent.

3.2. Perfection of Revelation through Jesus Christ

The self-revelation of God through the incarnation is the absolute disclosure of God.
The revelation is complete in the incarnation, but the understanding of man is yet on the way
to reach its perfection (Heb.1:1). The idea of definitive and full revelation in Christ is very
often misunderstood as if we already know the whole truth and everything about God's plan
of salvation. We do not know yet in any comprehensive way the mystery of Christ. It has to
be gradually unfolded by the Holy Spirit who alone will lead the Church into the fullness of
truth. (Jn 14:25-26). The revelation is culminated in the incarnation does not mean that God
is never more present and acting in history. God through the risen Christ and His spirit is all
the more dynamically present in the created world and in human history leading the whole
creation to its final fulfilment.

3.3. Understanding and Interpretation of Revelation

The revealed truth can be understood through the experience and interpretation. In
order to understand and comprehend the divine truth of revelation, human beings have to
depend on their experience. The revelation and revelational experience are to be interpreted
in an understandable manner to humanity. Through the revelational experience and
interpretation a version of revelation or revealed truth which is understandable to humanity
originates. That should be totally loyal to and in line with the absolute truth. In that process is
the need of human reason and interpretation.

3
 Reason is man‟s quest for truth, but revelation is God‟s revealing Himself. In logic
reason is all important, but in theology reason is used to understand the divine revelation.
Reason enables man to distinguish between right and wrong. Revelations do not minimize
the importance of reason or reject it. On the contrary they sharpen reason.
Interpretation is primarily the understanding of the revelation using reason. The
interpretations have to be made in the light of the teachings and guidelines of the Church.
The interpretation must be for the building up of the Church. The Bible and the Tradition of
the Church contains different interpretations of the ultimate Truth. We have to be loyal to the
Church‟s understanding in interpreting revelation, because the Church of God is the
custodian of Bible and Tradition, which are the major sources of Revelation. Church is
entrusted by our Lord to continue his ministry until His second coming.

3.4. Revelation through the Conscience of Man

The revelation of God is present everywhere in the world in different ways even
without the persons serving as the instruments for it. It is expressed through Philosophy,
Science and all the creative activities of human beings. Human beings have a tendency
towards creativity and beauty. That itself is a proof for the pressure of God or His power on
them. The universality of the conscience and its turn towards goodness also points to the
natural revelation outside the religions. St. Paul speaks about it in Rom. 2:14-15, “For when
the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are
a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of
the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their
conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them”.
In his fourth way to prove the existence of Thomas Aquinas speaks about the
inclination of conscience towards goodness. He explains: we can see in the world degrees of
perfection and goodness. We know these degrees because we can compare them with the
maximum in any genus (genus = group of things). As human beings have the capacity for both
good and bad deeds they cannot be the source of all goodness. Therefore, the maximum in the
genus of morality and goodness must be God (the most perfect being), who is the 'first cause', or
source, of all goodness and perfection. We could notice the traits of Platonic and philosophy in

4
it. Plato taught about the perfect existence of everything and Aristotle has observed that we can
find a moral God behind a moral religion.
This idea was taken and developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), which is presently
known as „Moral Argument‟. Kant first denied the existence of God, but later repented and
wrote: “The powerful moral judgment of the conscience points to the existence of God.”
Conscience and moral rules can only be thought of as given by God. Our conscience proves that
there is God. We can consider this argument as a partial truth, but not capable enough to prove
the divine existence. We cannot make any comment depending on human conscience. No body
has the pure conscience except Jesus. Conscience of each person is conditioned by different
factors in his / her life.

3.5. Faith
The attitude of faith is a universal human phenomenon. Every human person has
some sort of faith, whether they are aware of it or not. Human experience shows that no
finite object can really or ultimately satisfy the human quest. In all decisions and actions
every human person in the quest for final self-realization or ultimate salvation tends to the
infinite and transcendent, whatever way they may conceive it. That expresses the faith in the
absolute reality, Who is God.
In Christian understanding faith is the human response to divine revelation. It is a pre-
condition and solid ground of learning theology. Without having faith in God, we cannot
study dogma, because it is not simply an intellectual exercise. Faith must be our constant
companion in learning Theology. Faith is at once the gift of God and the determination of
man. It is clear in the conversation between Lord Jesus Christ and Apostles “He said to them,
"But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of
the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father” (Mt. 16:15-17). The
Christian view is that faith in God has evolved through ages and through God‟s own
revelation. No rational quest can find out a complete answer to the question of man‟s faith in
God. Human experience shows that no finite object can really or ultimately satisfy the human

5
quest. In all the decisions actions every human being in quest for final self-realization or
ultimate salvation tends to the infinite and transcendent, whatever way they may conceive it.
Christian faith can be called total response and commitment of the whole person to
God revealed through the incarnate second person Jesus Christ. Faith is not merely the
intellectual acceptance of some truths revealed by God. Nevertheless it has its rational,
cognitive, ethical, mystical and emotional and other dimensions, which are expressed in
various ways, in creeds, beliefs, dogmas, rites and rituals. In another way we could say faith
is not just an ascent of the intellect to a set of truths, but a personal encounter and experience
with God which transcends the whole person. We see this in the life of saints who really
encountered God.

3.6. Interpretation
Interpretation is primarily the understanding of the revelation using reason. The
interpretations have to be made in the light of the teachings and guidelines of the Church.
The interpretation must be for the building up of the Church. The Bible and the Tradition of
the Church contains different interpretations of the ultimate Truth. We have to be loyal to the
Church‟s understanding in interpreting revelation, because the Church of God is the
custodian of Bible and Tradition, which are the major sources of Revelation. Church is
entrusted by our Lord to continue his ministry till His second coming.
Learning Dogmatic Theology is not an end in itself. It only leads us to the conviction
that our intellectual capacity cannot comprehend God. Learning dogma must be a first step of
„living theology‟, which is a higher spiritual experience. Theology brings us to the realm
above reason even without neglecting reason. Instead of trying to contain the ultimate truth
in our intellect, it teaches us a life of worship based on Eucharist, Sacraments and prayers.
Dogma also teaches us that we can grow in the grace of God through such a life. Such a
growth is called theosis or divinization.

4. Creation Preservation and Providence

The first two chapters of Genesis give us an account of God performing the act of
creation through His Word and making man with His own hands giving him dominion over

6
the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26). God created the world out of nothingness (ex-nihilo). Before
creation there was absolute infinity that is immeasurable and incomprehensible and is beyond
objective realities is what is called non-existence out of which God created everything. It is
qualified as nothingness in human understanding. Creation reveals God‟s will, genius and
might.
Out of nothingness the creation came into existence to an order-less state (chaos).
Again by the work of the Spirit of God cosmic order became a reality.
The New Testament testifies that God created the world through Christ, “He is before
all things and in him all thing hold together” (col. 1:17). According to Justin Martyr and
other early Christian Apologists, God created everything by His Word, Who is the eternal
Son. Jn.1:3 also witnesses the same.
The Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed speaks about God the Son: “... same substance
with the Father; and by whom all things were made...”. God the Father is the creator, God the
Son also participated in the divine act of creation.
We read in Gen. 1:2: - “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”
This is the very first reference to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. It is about
the work of the Holy Spirit over the primeval chaotic water. There the Spirit of God is a
creative agent, which worked together with the Word of God to bring forth meaningful
existence from the lifeless chaos.
The Hebrew word Merachepheth is translated into English generally as „moving
over‟. Some scholars hold that a rather correct translation is „brooding upon‟ John Owen, and
Old Testament Scholar, explains the word thus “The word moved (merachepheth) signifies a
gentle motion, like that of a dove over its nest, to communicate vital heat to its eggs or to
cherish its young”. Such an explanation is seen in the Jewish Rabbinic understanding also.
Holy Spirit prepared the creation to contain life in it. We could see the economy of the Holy
Trinity in the creation of cosmos.

7
4.1. The Origin of Time
While dealing with creation, an important question arises is “when did time
originate?” There are
three views on this:
1. There was time before creation
2. God created time after creating other things
3. God created time along with others things

Christianity accepts the third possibility.According to St. Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-
395) creation is a medium extended to the limit of time and space. God who is beyond the
limits of time and space extended certain things to the limits of time and space and that is
creation. Creation is the change from nothingness to existence. All existence comes from
nothingness and will return to nothingness. The created existence is mortal because it has
beginning. The time in our understanding is applicable only to the created things.

4.2. Preservation and Providence

As well as God is the creator; He is the protector of the creation. He preserves and
controls the universe. Gregory of Nyssa relates the providence of God with His absolute
freedom, thus, God is absolutely free. That means, He is free to be with the creation or
without it. He was in the former state before creation and He is in the latter state at present.
For Gregory the creation survives each moment because God wishes for it to survive this
moment. Providence of God becomes manifest in the protection and preservation that He
extends to the created. As the crown of creation humanity has responsibility of participating
in the divine economy of preserving the creation. God said to the fallen humanity, “Cursed
be the earth because of you!” (Gen. 3:17). This verse reveals the responsibility of human
beings in preserving the purity and balanced state of earth. Humanity is supposed to act as
the caretakers of this world in keeping it according to the will of God.

8
 The Doctrine of Trinity
The belief in Triune makes Christianity unique against the other monotheistic
religions like Judaism, Islam etc. Trinitarian monotheism serves as core and unchangeable
foundation of Christianity. It is the highest and most appropriate form of human
understanding regarding the being and nature of God almighty. The Trinitarian nature of God
has been disclosed completely in the peak and culmination of divine revelation, which is the
incarnation of the second person of the Holy Trinity. Study about the being, nature and
economy of the Holy Trinity is one of the most significant branches of Systematic Theology.
In this course we make a survey of the Trinitarian concepts in the scripture, both Old
and New Testaments and will proceed through the early understanding of Trinitarian
theology to the developed theological perspectives of the fourth century and later. The
Trinitarian heresies and doctrinal conflicts also will be dealt with significant importance.

5.1. Doctrine of Trinity in the Old Testament

The Old Testament doesn‟t give a very clear picture of the doctrine of Holy Trinity.
One will be able to find some implicit references while looking into it with a Christian
perspective. Through the process of revelation, God paved the way through the Old
Testament to establish a clear understanding of the Doctrine of Holy Trinity in the New
Testament and in Christianity. The unity of God is an emphatically asserted truth in the Old
Testament. Some references points to the use of plural to denote can be interpreted as hints
of the Triune nature of God. The concepts of wisdom and spirit in the Old Testament are also
to be surveyed for a better understanding of presence and growth of Trinitarian concepts.

5.1.1. Unity of God

The Old Testament expresses very clear understanding regarding the oneness of God.
And it is quite reasonable to expect such an approach in Judaism, the earliest known
monotheistic religion. The creedal expression "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the
LORD alone!” (Deut. 6:4) has a central place in Jewish worship in the Synagogues.
Whenever the word Lord is printed in capital letters in the Old Testament, it stands as a

9
translation of a special Hebrew title which can best be written in Roman letters as YHWH.
Most scholars agree the best way to spell to spell this title so that it can be spoken is
„YAHWEH‟ although nobody can say for certain what vowels are used when the name was
first used among the Israelites.
When the Yahweh was conceived as „Lord alone‟ by the Jews, there remained more
than one possibilities of understanding the idea. Some may have interpreted it as YHWH is
the only God for Israel, but there are other gods for other people. But that revelatory idea
certainly means that Yahweh, God of Israel is the only God and all others are mere idols with
no real existence and no power. The great leaders of Israel obviously understood it better
than the ordinary people. Even though Yahweh is generally accepted as the supreme God
who controls the whole history and the world the existence of other gods also was implicitly
attested in many of the Old Testament passages. In Ps. 96:4 and 135:5 Lord of Israel is
mentioned as God greater than the other gods. In Jud.11:24 a sort of henotheistic idea is
expressed very clearly, “Should you not possess that which your god Chemosh gave you to
possess, and should we not possess all that the LORD, our God, has cleared out for us?” A
similar idea is in 1Sam.26:19.
While coming to the post exilic period, the Deutero Isaiah (40-55) expresses quite
clearly that the gods served by other nations simply do not exist, and Yahweh is the God of
all nations (Is. 44:6; 45:22; 46:9). The very radical monotheism is strongly established in
Israel in the post exilic period. Then onwards a very strong monotheistic belief considering
Lord as the creator and sustainer of all life and existence deep rooted in the religion of Israel.
It was really a positive shift grasping the divine revelation by the people of Israel.
We may ask, why the idea of Trinity was not clearly revealed in the Old Testament
times. The answer seems to be that it was more important for the Jews to grasp the
significance of God‟s unity. No human being can fully understand what God is. It would
have been easy for the Jews to misunderstand the truth about His triune nature. They might
have tried to worship three separate gods, and even this limited form of polytheism would
have prevented them from reaching the truth about God. For the truth could not be fully

10
understood with an appreciation of the Unity of God. So God revealed His oneness first
through the Old Testament and later the Triune nature later through the New Testament.

5.1.2. Wisdom and the Word

In the pre-exilic books of the Old Testament, wisdom is regarded as a quality which is
of God and given to human beings as a gift. (Jer.10:12; Deut.4:6; 1Kings.3:28; 4:29). In
Proverbs 1-8 wisdom is described as a woman. She is active and alive and does what she
thinks right. But in Prov.8:22-36 we find new ideas of wisdom, described in a different way
as follow:

Prov.8:22 – „Wisdom was created by the Lord at the beginning of His work.
8:30, 31 – Wisdom was like a master workman and found delight in all that Lord
made.
8:35 – Wisdom provides life to all who find her.
Later in the book of wisdom and other Judaist literature Wisdom is very much
understood and depicted in personified form. Philo of Alexandria, a first century B.C
Hellenistic Jewish philosopher made significant attempts to bring together the concepts of
Logos in Greek philosophy and of wisdom in the Old Testament. He presented Wisdom as an
agent of creation and mediator between God and humanity. He portrayed Logos as the „chief
angel‟. The underlying problem of inequality and duality between God and Logos has been
very much rectified in the prologue of the Gospel according to John. By presenting Logos as
an Angel, Philo attested to His personified nature, but it eventually caused the
misinterpretations of divinity and equality of the Logos with God the Father in the ideas of
Origen and Arius. Philo‟s idea of presenting Logos the chief Angel of God influenced the
thoughts and beliefs of the early Judeo-Christian community.

5.1.3. Holy Spirit (Spirit of God)

We don‟t get a clear picture of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament. Ruah d’
Elohim(Spirit of God) is mainly understood as the source of all charismas and as an agent of
communication, which mediates between God and man. The Spirit of God plays a significant
role right from the creation of the Cosmos. The Spirit has also got a unique role in the life of
Israel. It is considered to be the source of all the ministries and charismas of Israel. The Spirit

11
is considered to be the agent, which keeps the human-divine relationship and creaturely
dependence of man upon God. In Psalms the Spirit is rendered as the divine presence in the
human beings (Ps 51:10-12).
Different rabbinic schools have their own interpretations of the Old Testament. The
working of the Spirit of God is a prominent theme in their literature. They have developed
their Pneumatology in the light of the Old Testament. To a great extent their ideas influenced
the formation of the Christian Pneumatology. The Spirit of God is considered to be the
source of genuine prophecy. The Spirit communicated the will of God to Israel through the
prophets. The close association between „Spirit of God‟ and prophecy was a matter of great
concern to the Rabbinic thought. The expressions „Spirit of God‟ and „Spirit of Prophecy‟ are
used almost like synonyms here. This association can be read back even to the very early
phase of prophecy in the Old Testament. In the early phase of the prophetic phenomenon of
Israel, the ecstatic experience is depicted as the outward sign of the active presence of the
„Spirit of God‟ in a person. The awareness about the role of the „Spirit of God‟ in the
revelations is very well reflected in almost all of the classical prophets. For them the „Spirit
of God‟ is the source of all types of revelations. The prophets are conscious about their
possession of the Spirit. They consider themselves as the Spirit-filled messengers of Yahweh.
Hosea equates the prophet with the man of Spirit (9:7). The nature of the Spirit as an agent of
the execution of the wrath of God is an idea prevalent in Hosea. At the same time he does not
ignore the role of the Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration. Isaiah speaks about the
different functions of the Spirit that effects the salvation of Israel the working of the Spirit in
the Messiah (Is. 11:2). The role of the Spirit in the life of the Israelite community is most
beautifully pictured in Is.32:15-20. Here the Spirit is the source of all eschatological
blessings. According to Isaiah the qualities like justice, peace and prosperity are attainable
only through the pouring of the Spirit upon us from the high. For him the Spirit is the source
of all virtues and blessings poured upon and attained by Israel.
In the vision narrated in the opening lines of the book of Ezekiel, the Spirit is pictured
as the movement and power, which drives the things according to its wish (Ezek. 1:12,20).
Spirit is the power, which sets the prophet on his feet and carries him away in the vision
(Ezek 2:2; 3:12; 8:3; 11:1; 43:5). The Spirit is identified with the hand of God: “The Spirit
12
lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness in the heart of my Spirit, the hand of
the Lord being strong upon me” (Ezek3:14). “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he
brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was
full of bones” ( Ezek. 37:1). The working of the Word of God is associated with the working
of the Spirit. He described the coming salvation of the exiled in terms of a „new Spirit‟ and a
new heart. The role of the Spirit in the liberation and salvation of Israel is one of the
principal themes in Ezekiel. In 36:23-31, the prophet speaks about the new Spirit, which is
the Spirit of God himself. The Spirit is given to establish a new covenant. The Spirit here
acts as an agent for cleansing and restoration.
In Is 40:13 and 44:3 the Spirit is depicted as an agent of God‟s wisdom and renewal
of the covenant. In Is. 40:13 the Spirit of God is associated to His wisdom (This passage is
quoted in Rom.11:34 and in 1Cor.2:16 where the English translation „mind‟ adequately
expresses the meaning here). In the servant song of Is.61:1-3, the possession of the Spirit is
attributed to the divine anointing. In 63:10-11; 14 Isaiah speaks about the gifts of the Holy
Spirit given to Israel and their negative attitude towards the Spirit. According to the prophet,
by their rebellion they grieved the „Holy Spirit‟. As a contrary to the general Old Testament
thinking here the „Holy Spirit‟ is personified. The same idea is proposed by St. Paul in Eph.
4:30. Is. 59:20-21 explains the covenant of everlasting Spirit. The Spirit and the word are
given to the people as an everlasting gift from God. The prophet Joel presents the Spirit as an
eschatological gift to be poured upon all flesh (Joel. 2:28-32). Here the word „flesh‟ denotes
the mankind. Pouring of the Spirit upon the house of Israel is mentioned in Ez.39:29; but
only Joel gives a universal dimension to the pneumatic outpouring. In the sermon after the
descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter quoted the words of Joel
as the prophecy fulfilled in the miraculous event happened (Acts.2:4-21). For him, that was
an eschatological outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which made the apostles prophets for the
whole world.
The Psalms witness different characteristics and functions of the Spirit as the life-
giving agent in creation and as the source of moral guidance, inner renewal, God‟s active
presence, etc. Ps. 33:4 presents the Spirit (breath) as an agent of creation and in Ps. 104: 30
He is the one who preserves and renew the earth. For the Psalmist Spirit manifests the
13
presence of God (Ps.139:7). The Spirit of God works also as a guide and renovator of each
human person (Ps.143:10; 51:12-14). The picture of the Spirit in Psalms is fairly different
from that of the early books and prophetic tradition, which depict the Spirit as the source of
ecstatic and visionary experience. In the Psalms the role of the Spirit in the realm of personal
experience is treated with importance. In Ps.51 the Spirit is pictured as something divine, a
gift of God in man. In vs. 10 the Psalmist cries for a new Spirit. In vs.11 the preservation of
the Holy Spirit is demanded. Here the Spirit is serving as the Divine-human link. The idea
regarding the Spirit as the guide and renovator is very close to the New Testament concept of
Holy Spirit, especially that of the Johannine „Paraclete‟.

5.1.4. Old Testament Expressions Referring to the Plurality

in Godhead
The traditional understanding of Christianity asserts that plural expressions regarding
God in the Old Testament are indications to His Triune nature. Even though many of the
modern biblical scholars hold difference of opinion, it is quite reasonable have a look into
such references.

Creation: “Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”.
(Gen.1:26)
Fall: “Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us…”. (Gen. 3:22)
Scattering of Language at Babel: “Let us then go down and there confuse their
language, so that one will not understand what another says”. (Gen. 11:7).
Vision of Prophet Isaiah: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I
send? Who will go for us?” (Is.6:8).
Manifestation of Lord before Abraham:(Gen. 18).
All the afore said references except the appearance of Lord as three persons contain
pluralistic expressions, but the number three is not mentioned clearly. Manifestation of
Yahweh before Patriarch Abraham is a rather clear expression of triune nature of God
revealed in the Old Testament. All the other references are reread with very strict
monotheistic spirit in the later literary works of the Old Testament including the Book of
Jubilees of the latter half of second century B.C. Philo of Alexandria, a second century B.C

14
Hellenistic Jewish Philosopher suggested that the implied conversations of God in Gen. 1:26,
3:22 and 11:7 are between the God as the subordinate powers who assisted him in creation of
human beings. In discussion of Gen.1:26 Philo argues that although God was the sole agent
in creation of other things, He was assisted by subordinate powers in the creation of man. As
God could create only good things, it is obvious that others should create the evil in man.
Thus he tries to find an answer for the problem of evil.

5.2. Doctrine of Trinity in the New Testament

God self-revealed in the New Testament as Triune as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The God, Who is revealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit, is understood as the same God Who
revealed Himself in the Old Testament. The God attested in the New Testament is unity.
There is no evidence in the New Testament that the unity of God is questioned or in doubt.
The divine unity is assumed and affirmed (1Cor. 8:4f; Eph. 4:4f; Mk. 12:29). In other words
the New Testament authors‟ understanding of Christ and the Holy Spirit does not challenge
or raise the question of the unity of God, but rather manifests that unity.
There are several passages in the New Testament in which the three names are put
together in a formula or in close proximity (2Thess. 2:13f; Gal. 4:6; 1Cor. 12:4f; 2Cor.3:14;
Eph. 4:4f; 1Pet. 1:2; Mt. 28:19; Acts. 2:32f). These passages indicate the three fold nature of
God, which became the basis of the Trinitarian understanding of the early Church.

5.3. The Doctrine of Holy Trinity Developed in the Fourth

Century
Capadocian Fathers developed the famous Trinitarian formula that Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are of „one ousia and three hypostases‟. That means one substance and three
divine persons. There is no subordination among the three divine persons in the Holy Trinity.
But the Capadosian Fathers explains Father as the centre of unity in the Holy Trinity.
Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-389) explains the doctrine by stating, “ The three have one
nature, i.e. God, the ground of unity being the Father, out of whom andtowards whom the
subsequent persons are reckoned” Gregory of Nyssa speaks of “ one and same person
() of the Father, out of whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds".
15
The Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity is mainly depending on the definition proposed by
the Capadocian Fathers
The Catholic Church follows the theological stand point of St. Augustine regarding
doctrine of the Holy Trinity. St. Augustine taught that the essence (ousia) of the
divine persons is the basis of the Holy Trinity. Depending on this theory the peculiarities of
each divine person like begetting of Son and procession of Holy Spirit cannot be explained
well. In order to settle the problem of defining the relationship between the three Divine
Persons, Augustine developed another interpretation as follows. „God is love‟. So we can
understand the ousia (substantia) of God as love. Father is the perfect Love. He perfectly
shared His existence and so Son as Love Shared. Since the act (sharing of being), subject,
object and result are perfect, it must be eternal, because perfection cannot be in finite realm.
Holy Spirit is presented as the Love Bond between the Father (Love) and Son (Love Shared).
Being the Bond of Love between the two perfect beings, having love as the ousia, Holy
Spirit also is perfect in His being. According to this theory the relationship of the Third
Person (Holy Spirit) towards the First Person (Father) and Second Person (Son) cannot be
differentiated. So this theory paved the way for the later Catholic teaching of dual procession
of the Holy Spirit. The diagram below shows the nature of Augustinian definition of Trinity.

Love Love Shared

(Father) (Son)

Love Bond
(Holy Spirit)

16
 Christology
Christology deals with the doctrinal understanding of the Church regarding the person
and work of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the incarnation of the eternal Word is obviously the
salvation of the whole creation. His incarnation marked the perfection of Divine Revelation.
Church understands and explains the doctrine of the person and work of Christ without
neglecting the soteriological nature and doctrinal Orthodoxy. The fathers of the Church
viewed the Doctrinal Orthodoxy as fulfilled in keeping the faith correct which brings
salvation.

6.1. New Testament Understanding of Christ

The whole Christological understanding of the Church is deeply rooted in the New
Testament. So a proper understanding of the Christological themes and ideas present in the
New Testament is an essential step in learning Doctrine of Christ.

6.1.1. Hopes, concepts and their fulfilment

The early form of Christian Kerugma presented Christ in the light of Old Testament
and Jewish expectations and messianic concepts. The Acts of the Apostles call Jesus the
servant (Acts. 3:13; 4:27), the Holy and Just one (7:52; 22:14; 2:27; 13:35), the Author of
Life (3:15) leader and saviour (5:31). Here the reference is not to the suffering servant, but to
Moses, the great prophet. (3:22; 7:37).
In his temptation Jesus underwent the experience of Israel (Deut. 8:2). The figures of
servant Moses (Deut. 9:9) and of Elijah the prophet (1kings. 19:8) also carry some prophetic
references to Jesus. Jesus is referred to by the John the Baptist as the one who is to come
(Mt. 3:11; 11:3). See also the exclamation of the crowd, “This is indeed the prophet who is to
come into the world.” (Jn. 6:14)

6.2. Synoptic Christology

One of the simple ways in which we can examine the synoptic Christology is by
examining the titles used for our Lord in the synoptic Gospels and trying to understand their
meaning of the many titles, we will just take three, Son of man, Son of God and Lord

17
6.2.1. Son of Man
This title appears seventy times in the synoptic Gospels. If we take St. Mark, the
earliest Gospel, Son of man appears fourteen times in the sayings of Jesus Himself. Our Lord
preferred this title in speaking of Himself to similar title „Son of God‟. It is used frequently in
prophesying His Messianic Suffering, death and resurrection [Mk. 8:37; 9:9,12, 31; 10:33ff,
45; 14:21, 41). Sometimes it reflects a present Messianic sense (Mk. 2:10, 28) and sometimes
it is used with an eschatological connotation (8:38, 13:26; 14:62). Most of the New
Testament scholars notice a connection between this title and the idea of pre-existent Son of
man spoken in Dan. 7:13, 14. This Son of man of the synoptic Gospels is the second Adam
to St, Paul. Both these expressions show that Christ is the cosmic man and not just a man.

6.2.2. Son of God

This title appears 45 times in the New Testament as an exclusive name for Jesus
Christ. The only other occasion is in Lk. 3:38 where Adam is spoken of as the son of God.
While „Son of man‟ is the title that is exclusively found in the lips of Jesus, this is addressed
to Him “by the possessed man” (Mk. 3:11) by unbelieving Jews (Mt. 27:40) and by Caiaphas
(Mt.26:63). St Luke introduces the terminology in words of Annunciation (Lk.1:35). It is a
favourite title of St. Matthew to describe our Lord as he inserts it is the confession of Peter
(16:16), the walking on the sea (14:33) at the shouting of the crowd at the time of crucifixion
(27:40) and finally in the Trinitarian baptismal formula (Mt. 28:19). Like the first man Adam
(Lk. 3:38), the new man comes directly from God. But he is not only as Adam was, simply
the recipient of the divine breath of life. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary (Lk. 1:35; Mt.1:18). He is the eternal word and Son of God. Jesus is at the same time
Son of Adam (man) and Son of God. St. John puts more meaning into this title by specifying
Him as „the only begotten Son of the father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14; 3:16)

6.2.3. The Lord

Another important title used in the New Testament to denote Jesus Christ is Kyrios,
which means Lord. Sometimes the same word is used to demote God, the Father also.

18
(Lk.2:29; Acts. 4:24; 2Pet. 2:1; Jude 4; Rev. 6:10). As applied to Christ it is the highest
confession of His person (1 cor.12:3).
As a creedal expression the early Christians proclaimed „Jesus is Lord‟. The prayer
Maranatha had already become the prayer addressed to Jesus (1cor. 16:2). The title Kyrios is
the translation of the Hebrew word Adonai, into Greek, which is used in LXX. The word is
used in the Old Testament to denote Yahweh. The same title is given to Jesus, ascribing His
divinity.

6.3. Jesus Christ, the Word (s)

The ancient Greek word λογοs, usually translated as word, has a wide variety of
meanings and is common to all periods of Greek literature. In mathematics, it means ratio or
proportion. But in Greek logos also means computation or reckoning. Other meanings are
explanation, argument, theory, law or rule of conduct, hypothesis, formula or definition,
narrative, oration, conversation, dialogue, oracle or proverb. The specific meaning can be
derived only from the context in which the word appears. However, it should be remembered
that the primary meaning of logos is derived from the verb legein means to join together or
gather and also to say. So, logos issaying that is, a meaningful word. It is the inward thought
and the outward expression of thought in speech.

6.3.1. Logos in Greek Philosophy

Logos had a long, distinguished, and very complex career in Greek philosophy. That
career began with the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclites (ca. 500 BC).The principal idea of
Heraclites is that everything changes and nothing remains in a permanent state. He has seen
that, in spite of the constant change, there is a stable order. It is a kind of law immanent in all
things and determines the constant change in the universe. He called it as the Universal
Reason, logos, which is a sort of world-governing and all-pervading reason. For this Logos is
the ultimate cause of all becoming in the universe.
For Plato (429–347 BC) logos is the inward dialogue of the mind as it flows from the
mind through the lips. In its philosophical sense, logos was associated with discourse or
rational explanation rather than with the Heraclitean concept of an ordering principle of the

19
material world. Plato‟s Republic uses this term to refer the rational part of the soul. Rational
discourse or explanation plays an important role at what Plato considers the higher levels of
being, that is, at the level of the essence (οσσια) or idea of things, and can lead to real
knowledge.
Aristotle (384–322 BC) also used logos in several different ways. He often used the
term logos in the sense of definition. He also used it to mean proportion or ratio. Aristotle
often used the same term to refer the guiding principles of discourse. In Politics, Aristotle
used the same word but obviously meant that what distinguished human beings from lower
animals is reason (λογος). Logos is, also, presented as the source of unique ’αρετη (moral
excellence) of man.
In Stoicism the logos is conceived as a rational divine power that orders and directs
the universe and it is identified with God and nature. Within the cosmic order determined by
the logos are individual centers of potentiality, vitality, and growth. These are seeds of the
logos (λογοι σπερματικοι or seminal logoi). All these seminal logoi are contained within the
supreme universal logos. Then the logos became divine reason governing the world. The
Logos is present everywhere and seems to be understood as both a divine mind and at least a
semi physical force, acting through space and time. Later Stoics thought the logos to be the
soul of the world. Logos is the soul of the world or universe and there is a universal logos
and individual logos. Individual logos is the part of universal logos and there is no
difference. Individual logos is the individualization of universal logos.

6.3.2. Logos in Hellenistic Jewish Speculation

Aristobulus (fl.150 BC), an Alexandrian Jewish exegete, claimed that Moses called
the whole genesis of the world the words (iogol) of God. For Aristobulus both wisdom
(σουια) and sogol served similar cosmological ordering functions. It was in the works of
Philo of Alexandria that sogol found its full flowering in Hellenistic Jewish literature. He
considered the logos belonged to the world of ideas also connected logos with the expression
of the ideas. According to Philo, the logos is a mediating principle between God and the
world and can be understood as God's Word or the Divine Wisdom, which is immanent in
the world. Philo explained the logos as God‟s first born Son (protogonoshuios) which

20
emphasizes pre-existence and eternal nature. But we could not see a suggestion that the logos
could become incarnate. However, the logos has a distinct personality and it is described as
the image of God, through whom the whole universe was framed. Further, when the Old
Testament describes the appearance of the angel of Yahweh to the patriarchs, Philo‟s
explanation is that in fact it was the Logos. We can say that these philosophical ideas
concerning Logos culminated in the presentation of the Christological doctrines in St John‟s
Gospel. Apart from the imperfect and partial truths of the philosophical explanations, St.
John has presented the doctrine of Logos, the eternal Son of God and His incarnation. So the
Church ownered him by giving the title the Theologian.

6.3.3. Logos in the Prologue of the Gospel According to St John

In the prologue of the St John‟s Gospel, Jesus Christ is identified with the Logos
made incarnate (Jn 1:1-3, 14). We may note three main characteristic of Jesus Christ as seen
in his logos doctrine. Firstly, there is a clear reference to the pre-existence of the Logos
(Jn.1:1). His divinity and equality with God the Father are undoubtedly explained. Secondly
there is no deference between the creative power of Logos and the creative power of God.
The participation of Logos in the Economy of Creation is clearly specified (1:3). And, the
third characteristic is the relationship of Logos to humanity. This is summed up in the
incarnation of the Logos who became flesh (Jn.1:14). The reality of the humanity of
incarnate Logos is very well emphasized here.

6.4. The Virgin-Birth and Resurrection

Parthenogenesis (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38) is one of the most important aspects in
the salvific earthly ministry of God the word. Miracle of virgin Birth is necessary for
understanding the content of incarnation. Like us God the Son came to the world through a
womb, but unlike us He came from the Father. In the same way, He died like all of us, but
He rose again on the third day unlike us. These two absolute miracles therefore bear witness
to the super most miracle of the incarnation and they must remain inseparable till the end of
history.

21
6.5. Pre-existence of Christ
Many of the New Testament portions bear witness to the pre-existence of Christ.
Christ is called the first born of all creation (col.1:5). This idea is reflected also in Heb. 1:6,
“God brought His first born in to the world “, Heb 2:10, “For whom and by whom all things
exist” Heb 10:5 points to the fact that Christ entered into the world at a point of time. Phil.
2:6-11 speaks about the coming of the pre-existent son. St. John also speaks about the pre-
existence of Christ. John the Baptist witnessed Jesus‟ pre-existenceby saying, “This was he
of whom I said, „He who comes after me ahead of me because he was before me” (Jn.1:15,
30). The Lord himself too testified His pre-existence(Jn. 8:58).

6.6. Pre-Nicene Heresies and the Council of Nicaea

The post-biblical growth of the Christian Doctrines marked its development in the
writings of Apostolic Fathers and Apologists. The Church has rejected many Trinitarian and
Christological interpretations, because they do not agree with the common tradition and faith
of the Church. The Christology of the Church developed in course of time through a process
of confrontation with the false interpretations and the theories regarding the Holy Trinity and
person of Christ. For a better understanding of the correct doctrine, we must check the
problems with the heretical or false teachings. Many of the logical questions were raised by
the believers and non-believers regarding the Holy Trinity and the incarnate Logos. In the
process of answering those different incorrect teachings originated. The Church succeeded in
fruitfully expelling the wrongs trends and ideologies which prevents the proper
understanding of the Divine Revelation.

6.6.1. Gnosticism
Gnosticism began as a movement within paganism even before Christianity. But in
the very first century itself, there was an attempt to interpret the personality of Jesus Christ
from within the framework of Gnosticism. However, among the Gnostics themselves there
was difference of opinion. But generally they put forward the argument that there are two
distinct gods or divine realities. One is good god who created angels and spiritual beings.
Second is the god of evil created the material world and even the human body. But some of

22
the human persons have their souls created by the creator of goodness. They are ignorant
about their real nature and lived in darkness. It is to give them „Gnosis' or real knowledge
that God sent Jesus Christ to this world.
The Gnostic did not believe in the perfection of the Jesus Christ as God and man. For
them Jesus was only a mediator between the good god and the material world. For them the
knowledge about good god, Jesus and the material world is important. They did not give
much importance to passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. Bassilidus, Valentinus and
Ptolemy were some of the Christian Gnostic leaders of the second century.

6.6.2. Ebionitism
Ebionitism is a Jewish-Christian heretical teaching of the second century. Two
opinions exist regarding the origin of the term Ebionite. One suggestion is that it is derived
from the Hebrew word for poor. The second argument is of Tertullian who connected the
term to Ebion, the alleged founder of the sect. (Tertullian, Prescription against Heresies,33).
Ebionitism believed in the virgin-birth of Jesus, but denied His Divinity and Pre-existence.
Some radical factions among them denied even the virgin-birth. For them Jesus was merely a
man on whom the Holy Spirit had descended on at his baptism. Christ's work was that of a
prophet and teacher who enlarged the law by precepts of greater strictness. Jerome comments
on them, thus, “While they want to be Jews as well as Christians, they are actually neither
Jews nor Christians”. [Jerome, Letters, 112,113.] By the fifth century Ebionitism had
practically disappeared. But some scholars like Jean Danielouview the religious syncretism
evidenced in them as one of the causes for the emergence of Islam from the same religious
milieu.

6.6.3. Docetism
A tendency, rather than a formulated and unified doctrinewhich considered the
humanity and suffering of Christ as apparent rather than real emerged in the early Church.
Evidence for its existence arein the New Testament (1Jn. 4:1-3; 2Jn. 7; Col. 2:8f.). But this
ideological tendency reached its zenith and acquired the form of a collective belief in the
next generation, especially among the Gnostics. According to them the human nature of

23
Jesus was not real. They taught that ultimate spiritual being can‟t have the material body
which is evil. St.Ignatius of Antioch and early Fathers of the Church vigorously opposed this
false teaching.

6.6.4. Macrcionism
Marcionism is a heresy of second century. Marcian taught that the Christian Gospel is
fully a Gospel of love to the absolute exclusion of Law. He rejected Old Testament
completely. For him the creator God who is revealed in the Old Testament as God of Law,
had nothing in common with the God of Jesus Christ. The cruel God of Jews is completely
different from the supreme God of love whom Jesus Christ came to reveal.
This heretical theory shows some influence of Gnosticism, especially in the concept
of the duality of Gods. Marsionism do not accept Jesus as complete true God. This is not
only a Christological heresy but also a heretical teaching which shakes the concept of Holy
Trinity.

6.6.5. Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism)

This heretical movement originated by the work of Theodotus, a leather merchant of
second century. He came from Byzantium to Rome and started teaching that, Jesus was a
mere man who was anointed with the Holy Spirit at His baptism and thus became Christ.
According to that heretical teaching God is one and that is God the Father. Jesus was called
God only in the sense that a power of influence rested upon His human person. This heresy is
at the same time Trinitarian and Christological. Paul of Samosata a bishop from Antioch
supported this movement. He was condemned by the synod of Antioch in 268 AD. He taught
that the Word of God, which is the power () of Him, dwelt in Jesus. He denied the
separate hypostasis of the „Word‟. According to him Jesus was a man who get a unique
power and word of God.

6.6.6. ModalisticMonarchianism
Sebelius of third century is the Originator of this theory. This heresy is also known as
Sebellianism. According to them God is single and has on personality. This single
personality manifested in the old Testament as the Father and as the Son in Jesus Christ and

24
 as the Holy Spirit in the Church. They held that in the Godhead the only differentiation was a
mere succession of modes or operations. They were also called „Patripassions‟, as it was
implied in their doctrine that Father suffered as the Son. This heretical theory, which denied
the Trinity, and eternity of God the son, was strongly opposed by the leaders of the Church
of 3rd and 4th century.

6.7. Arianism and the Defence of Orthodoxy

Arianism was one of the most dangerous and complex heretical teachings in the entire
history of Christianity. Arius, a priest from Baucalis in Alexandrian region, proposed it in the
second and third decades of fourth century. Arianism was an attempt to answer the questions
on the nature and existence of God and the mystery of incarnation in a logically satisfactory
manner. It is a prime example of the excessive and improper use of human rationality into
divine mysteries. Many of the logical problems and questions explicitly and implicitly raised
by Arius resulted in many of the later heresies.

6.7.1. Arguments of Arius can be summarised thus:

God the Son is a creature, whom the Father has formed out of nothing by His will.
The term „beget‟ applied to the Son‟s generation must therefore bear the purely figurative
sense of „make‟. Son is a perfect creature, owing his being fully to Father‟s will.
1. As a creation Son is not a self-existent eternal being. He must have a beginning. According to
Arius although the Son “born outside time... prior to His generation He did not exist” and “there
was a then when the Son was not”.
2. The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father. In
Himself He is, like all other creatures, „alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father‟s essence
and individual being‟. Arius wrote: “Even if He is called God, He is not God truly, but by
participation in grace ... He too is called God in name only.”
3. As a creature Son must be liable to change and even Sin and fall from the communion of God.
4. God the Son is the Creator of the rest of the creation. (Later followers of Arius depicted the Holy
Spirit as a creation of God the son.)
5. Christ had a human body but did not have a human soul.
If we accept the teachings of Arius, then we will have to believe that:

25
 1. Father and Son are not of the same essence
2. There would be no Holy Trinity.
3. Jesus Christ is neither perfect God nor perfect man. He is a semi-divine and semi-human being.
4. The incarnation of God was not real. So there is no redemption for humanity
5. Jesus Christ was not able to reveal God‟s nature.
6. Worshiping Christ is worshiping God‟s Creation. In short we have to reject the truth of Bible and
the Church.

6.7.1.Teaching of Athanasius of Alexandria against Arianism

The central theme of Athanasius was the doctrine of salvation. He opposed Arius using
the Bible itself. His teachings can be summed up as follows:
1. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence.
2. Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man
3. Jesus Christ was not a servant, though he took the form of a servant.
4. Christ is God‟s eternal high priest (Heb. 6:20) and the unique mediator between God and man
(Heb.8:6; 9:15, 12:24; 1Tim. 2:5); He is God‟s perfect image (Col.1:15), first-born of all creation
as well as responsible for all creation, truly begotten from the Father not made, and the first-born
from the dead (Col. 1:18).
5. To save us from our Sins, Christ the only holy one who had no sin, carried our Sins for us,
died for us; His sinless perfection is the witness of the Bible (Jn.8:46; 8:29).
6. The Father did not adopt Him, but we are adopted in Him.
7. The incarnation and death for redemption are inseparable because redemption is possible
only by the incarnation of God Himself who died for our sins.
8. Even though the Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery; it is the supreme truth and reality.

St. Athanasius can be called „the Nicene Champion of Orthodoxy‟. Three persons in
one Trinity of one essence (Three hypostases and one Ousia) is a doctrine explained first by
St. Athanasius. Cappadocean Fathers later developed it. When the followers of Arius slightly
changed his heresy by stating that the essence of Son is similar to that of the Father
(Homoiousios), the Cappadocean Fathers firmly said it is the same essence (Homoousios).
Thus they confirmed the teachings of St.Athanasius and upheld the doctrine of unity in
Trinity and Trinity in unity.

26
6.8. Post-Nicene Development of Christology
After the council of Nicaea, Christology became the centre of dogmatic development.
Along with the development of correct doctrine some heresies also emerged. Apollinarianism
and Nestorianism were two major post-Nicene Christological heresies. The influence of the
Alexandrian and Antiochene schools and their thought patterns also reflected in those
heresies. The Alexandrian Tradition gave more importance to the Divinity of Christ and the
mystery of incarnation. The perfect union between the Godhead and manhood in Jesus Christ
is another main concern for them. Antiochenes were more concerned about the historicity
and the real humanity of Jesus Christ. Extremism in both sides caused deviations from
correct dogmatic teaching of the Church.

6.8.1. Appolinarianism
This heresy was proposed by Apollinarias, Bishop of Laodicea (ca. 310- Ca.390). He
tried to explain the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. He taught, Christ is both God and
Man. If Christ is only a man He did not save the world and if God alone, He is not a perfect
reconcilerestablished absolute peace between God and man. He was puzzled by the question,
how perfect Divinity and perfect humanity with their own separate will (mind) be maintained
in one person. How could two separate centres of thought harmoniously coexist in one
person? While answering this question, he deviated from the correct doctrine. He wrote: “If a
perfect God were united with a perfect man, than there would be two (sons). One is by nature
son of God and the other by adoption”. According to him if perfect humanity is in Christ, the
sinlessness and perfect harmony of two wills are not guaranteed. In order to overcome this
logical problem, he explained that in Christ the Divine Logos replaced the human rational
soul. That means, Christ was human according to the body which was animated by the divine
Logos. For him the Son of God has assumed the flesh from Virgin Mary and absorbed it into
His Divinity and Logos served remain the life-Principle in Jesus Christ.
In his theory, Apollinarius clearly denies the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ. It is a
misinterpretation of the biblical verse, “Word became flesh”.(Jn. 1:14 ) and an extremism in
the Alexandrian Theological Tradition. Capadocian Fathers opposed this theory vigorously.

27
According to them, Apollinarianism leads us to Docetism. And they argued that if Christ did
not assume human soul and mind our salvation is incomplete. Only by becoming what we are
in all the parts of our being, Christ has brought humanity into communion with God.
If Logos remain the animating principle in Jesus, the death in Cross was a result of
Divinity (Logos) from the human element in Jesus Christ. If it is so, the teaching of the
Church that the divinity never separated from humanity after the union, will be shattered.
Arius also argued that the human soul is completely absent in Jesus Christ probably farseeing
the logical problem in which Apollinarias fell short.

6.8.2. Nestoriamism
Nestorius, who became the Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D, was a strong
supporter of the Antiochene Tradition. He was a student of Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of
the pillars of the Theological school of Antioch. Nestorius taught that the union of Divinity
and humanity in Jesus Christ was only a union in the level of prosopon. That means the
union was in peripheral level. He explained it is a moral union of Divine and human persons.
Cyril of Alexandria accused him holding the doctrine of „two sons in Jesus Christ‟, the only
begotten son of God and the adopted human son. According to Nestorius, Divinity and
humanity must have existed in Jesus side by side, each retaining its peculiar properties and
operations. He explained, he could not think of tow natures except as each having its
prosopon (external aspect or form as an individual) and its hypostasis (concrete substance or
person). He writes: “the two natures were united by their union in a single prosopon”. Here
also we notice the wrong approach towards the issue of harmonious co-existence of two wills
in one person seems to play a crucial role.
Nestorius denied calling St. Mary Theotokos. He argued that God cannot have a
mother and no creation can give birth to the Godhead. St. Mary bore a man, the vehicle of
divinity but not God. He proposed a new title Christotokos, to Holy Virgin Mary. By that
proposal he tried to compromise between the expressions Antnropotokos and Theotokos. In
the Antiochene tradition St. Mary was considered only as Anthropotokos (man-bearer) where
as the Alexandrians called her Theotokos (God-bearer).At present all the traditional churches,

28
except the „Church of the East‟ (East Syrian Church) accept the expression Theotokos to
denote St. Mary.

6.8.3. Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444 AD.)

According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, in the incarnation, the eternal Word took to Him
and made His own, human flesh animated by a rational soul. The union between the word
and this humanity is a true and real union. He proposed the famous Christological expression
MiaphysistouTheouLogousesarkomene ('One incarnate nature of God the word‟). It is a
phrase accepted by both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches as Orthodox. There
is only one hypostasis and „nature‟ (physis) existing independently in the real order, the
Word incarnate.
Therefore there is only „one incarnate nature of the God the Word‟. Virgin Mary is
truly and properly Theotokos (God-bearer). In Christ there is no mixing of humanity or
divinity, no conversion of one into others.
The Cyrillian Christology is very well presented in the twelve Anathemas against
Nestorius.
1. The holy Virgin is Theotokos as Immanuel is true God.
2. The Logos was personally (hypostatically) united with the flesh in one Christ the God-Man.
3. The hypostatic union was so perfect that it was not a conjunction, but a union of natures.
4. In Christ there were not two characters (prosopon)or persons (hypostases)
5. Christ was not a God-bearing man (Theophoronantropon), but perfect God and perfect man
united perfectly.
6. Logos was the very God and not the Lord of Christ.
7. Jesus was not a man operated by God the word, to whom the glory of the only begotten Son
was attached, but the God-man.
8. It is the divine word that is worshiped and not the humanity which was assumed.
9. The Holy Spirit was not an alien power glorifying the son, but His Spirit.
10. Jesus Christ is the High priest and the Apostle of our confession.
11. The flesh assumed by Christ was life-giving flesh.
12. One must confer that the Logos suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh.

29
 According to Cyrillian Christology, there was only on centre of personality in Christ,
namely, the personality of the Word, which extends personality to human nature. The human
nature had not a separate personality of its own. He proposed the theory of
CommunicatioIdiomatum (interchange of the properties). He teaches that all the properties of
both Divinity and humanity are mutually exchanged since the union of persons is perfect.
Thus he tackled the question of harmonious coexistence of two separate wills in one person.
The difference from Apollinarinism is that there is not substitution of human rational soul by
the Logos, but the assumption of the perfect humanity with all the faculties.

6.8.4. Eutychanism
Eutychus (378-454) was the head of a very large monastery of Constantinople. He
was a blind supporter of Alexandrian Theological Tradition and a very strong opponent of
Nestorianism. Actually he was not able to defend and define the Alexandrian position in its
correct dogmatic way. In opposition to Nestorianism, he proposed a new theory that there
was only one nature in Christ „after the union'. Since no writings of Eutychus is available, we
cannot be sure that he originally proposed monophysitism It is almost obvious that he denied
saying that the humanity of Jesus was consubstantial (homoousios) with our humanity. The
opponents accused him that he held, Christ‟s divine nature swallowed His human nature and
so His humanity was changed into the divine nature. Any way in his teaching the perfect
humanity of Jesus Christ is not well attested.

6.9. Christology of Council of Chalcedon and the Defence of

Orthodoxy by the Church
The controversial Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) had the good aim of warding off
Nestorianism, Eutychanism and Apollinarianism as Nicaea warded off Arianism. But
actually the definition of Chalcedon favours Nestorianism. Let us examine the faith
formulation of the Council of Chalcedon: “We then following the Holy Fathers all with one
consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect
in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; fully God and at the same time truly man, of a
reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with Father according to His Godhead and

30
Consubstantial with us according to His manhood, in all things like unto us apart from sin;
begotten both before all ages of Father according to His Godhead, and in the last days born
of Mary the Virgin, Theotokos for us and our salvation, according to His manhood, one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord only begotten being made known „in two natures‟ without
confusion, without conversion, without division, without separation, the distinction of
natures having been in no way abolished through the union, but rather the property of each
nature being preserved and meeting in one person and one hypostasis.
This faith definition has significant phrases to exclude heresies. „Consubstantial with
Father‟ excludes Arianism, „perfect in manhood‟ excludes Apollinarianism, „without
division‟ excludes Nestorianism and „without confusion of conversion or change‟ excludes
Eutychanism. But the expression „made known in two natures‟ however favours
Nestorianism with the additional phrase „distinction of natures having been in no way
abolished through union.‟
Instead of „in two natures‟ the Council could have used „from two natures‟ as taught
by St. Cyril of Alexandria. The non - Chalcedonian Churches believe that from two natures,
divine and human, one person with perfect integration and hypostatic union was born into the
earth from Virgin Mary, Theotokos, in the fullness of time. That person was Logos who
assumed full humanity into one coherent personality. Chalcedon was a victory of the
Antiochene Theological Tradition and Pope Leo-I of Rome and not a triumph of the truth.
What the Oriental Orthodox Churches plead for is not a triumph of the Alexandrian
Theological Tradition, but the reassertion of the whole truth of the whole Church as
maintained before the division of 451 A.D. One person from two natures was the faith of the
Fathers till Chalcedon and it is sufficient enough to explain the unity and distinction of our
Lord.
The non-Chalcedonian leaders accused Nestorianism to the Council of Chalcedon.
The most outstanding theologian of non-Chalcedonian side in the sixth century was
St.Severus of Antioch. We can consider his teaching as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox
Tradition.According to him Christ was one person, identical with us in all things except sin.
He has „One nature of God the Word incarnate.‟ There was neither confusion of natures nor

31
separation of them, because the incarnate Logos, remaining the subject assumed the totality
of human nature. Christ had a hypostatic union of two natures. The „One incarnate nature of
Christ‟ was „one composite nature.‟ St.Severus wrote: “The expression „became incarnate‟
refer to the assumption of the flesh from the virgin, which was not separate by itself; so that
from two natures, namely Godhead and manhood, one Christ come forth from Mary. The
same is known at once God and man. He is the same substance with the Father in Godhead
and he himself is of the same substance with us in the manhood.” In this
exhortationSt.Severus clearly ruled out Eutychanism.
He stood against Apollinarianismtoo. He wrote: “Neither do we say that God the
Word was changed over to man, made up of body and soul. We confess on the contrary that
while remaining what he was he united to himself hypostatically flesh possessing a rational
Soul.” therefore the union of natures did not affect the reality, perfection or integrity of either
Divinity or humanity which continued dynamically in one Christ.”
As a concluding remark we can say the Oriental Orthodox Tradition neither favours
Apollinarianism nor supports Eutychanism, but remain in the correct doctrinal position
defined by St.Cyril of Alexandria and developed later bySt.Severus of Antioch, who can be
called the pillar and champion of Orthodoxy.

6.10. Theories of Redemption in Christology

Alongside with the doctrinal development of Christology, the soteriological themes
are also important in having a clear grasp of the understanding of the Church regarding
Christ. Some of such themes are analysed here briefly.

6.10.1. Kenotic Christology

The basis of this theology is Phil. 2:5-11.It deals with the self-emptying of God the
son. Originally this is a pre-Pauline Christological hymn. This reflects the understanding of
the early church regarding God‟s self-revelation and His self-negation or Kenosis. Here St.
Paul emphatically presents the fact that the pre-existent Christ Himself is the historical Jesus.
The first man Adam disobeyed God, but Jesus, the self-emptied God, shows the ultimate
obedience to God the Father. Adam wanted to be glorious like God. God the Son emptied

32
Himself and left His glory to be save the creation. The true essence of Godhead was with the
Son at the self-emptied state.

6.10.2. Cosmic Christology

Col. 1:15-20 explains St. Paul‟s view of Christ in relation to the universe. We have
already dealt with the role of god the Son (Word) in the creation. God the son mediated
between Father and creation. His mediatorship is executed in the redemption of the creation
also. Christ has shed His blood to reconcile the whole creation to God. The whole cosmos
attained its perfection in Christ Jesus, the eternal Son of God. In opposition to Gnosticism,
which explains the intervening powers and dominion between God and the universe, St. Paul
explains that Christ is the only mediator and redeemer.

6.10.3. Redemption and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ

There are different interpretations about crucifixion. Crucifixion was the redeeming
sacrifice for mankind. By His death and resurrection the redemption of mankind became
possible. While explaining this theological principle different questions arise. What was the
condition from which mankind redeemed? What price did God have to pay for it? To whom
did he play the ransom? What is the justification for the death of Jesus Christ? The perfect
innocent person was punished. Was it to please God, the Father that God the Son underwent
crucifixion? Did Jesus Christ by His death take upon Himself the inevitable punishment of
Sin? The Christian thinkers, who tried to answer these questions, formulated different
theories. We have to keep in mind the inefficiency of human intellect to comprehend the
divine mysteries, while examining those theories.

6.10.4. Ransom Theory

Thinkers like Origen believed that the sin of Adam brought mankind into the slavery
of devil and that by His suffering and death Christ paid the ransom to the devil and redeemed
the whole humanity. In the Holy Bible it is recorded that He gave His life as a ransom for
many.(Mk. 1:45; 1Tim. 2:6). But there it is not mentioned that the ransom was paid to the
devil. What is important is to accept the truth that Christ redeemed man from slavery and sin.

33
This theory might have its root in the Jewish sacrificial practice on the Day of Atonement.
(Lev. 16:5-23)
In the ransom theory the devil is indirectly admitted as powerful as God. The ransom
mentioned in the Holy Bible is the invaluable self-sacrifice of God made for the uplifting of
humanity from its fallen nature. It was to open a way to the eternal life. So it is quite
irrelevant to ask to whom the ransom was paid, whether to Good or to devil or to someone
else.

6.10.5. Re-capitulation Theory

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-200), a renowned Church Father teaches that
redemption is the process of bringing together all creation to Christ, who is the head. Jesus
Christ contained in Himself all the descendants in Him and redeemed all of them. This theory
has its foundation in the biblical verses (Eph. 1:10, 22,23)

6.10.6. Satisfaction Theory

Anselm (1033-1109), Archbishop of Canterbury has given a strange interpretation to
the redemption through Crucifixion. He explains, by His crucifixion God the Son satisfied
God, the Father and gave mankind the great reward He received for obedience. This was how
the entire mankind was redeemed. This theory is called the „satisfaction theory‟. Here the
stress goes to blind justice of God. According to this theory, the redemption of man is simply
a business of God only. The role of humanity is neglected.

6.10.7. Moral Influence Theory

Peter Abelard (AD. 1079-1142), a French Philosopher and theologian argues that
Jesus Christ, through crucifixion revealed God‟s love in order that the sinners might repent
and change their hearts. He denies the ransom theory and satisfaction theory. Abelard points
to the depth of God‟s love and the need for repentance on the part of the sinners. This theory
is known as „Moral influence theory‟.
According to this theory the redemption of man depends only on his attitude. It denies
the unique significance of Christ event and fails in explaining the real meaning of it,

34
Thecorporal nature of redemption is not expressed in this argument. Human freedom is given
excessive importance.

6.10.8. Penal Theory

Leaders of reformation like Martin Luther have stated that Jesus Christ voluntarily
accepted the inevitable wages of sin. God‟s sense of justice cannot but punish sin. The love
of God will not let the sinner suffer. So the only alternative was for the incarnated God the
son to suffer. They also beach that Christ voluntarily accepted punishment to become one
with the sinner.
Then a question arises is that whether the justice is done when an innocent person is
punished, even though he takes upon himself the punishment voluntarily?

6.10.9. St. Athanatius on Redemption

In his work „The Incarnation of the word‟ St. Athanasius explains the mystery of redemption.
According to him God‟s love does not allow man to perish. God‟s sense of justice will not at
the same time let the sin go unpunished. So, combining in Himself justice and love, God
became man and suffered crucifixion. God the Son became a sacrificial lamb bearing the sin
of the world. (Jn.1:29; IICor. 5:21). He triumphed over death by resurrection God alone can
defeat the death. So He became man and redeemed humanity and whole creation from the
eternal damnation. The creator alone can become redeemer. St. Athanasius writes, “In order
that the Sons of man may become Sons of God, the Son of God became the Son of man.” We
are adopted to the Sonship of God through Jesus Christ. (Gal. 4:4-7).

35