CHRISTOLOGICAL HERESIES

1. Ebionism.
   This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature just a man, denying his divinity altogether. The Ebionites were an offshoot of the specifically Jewish form of Christianity, which was a potent force in the apostolic age. The rapid spread of Christianity among the Gentiles diminish its influence and the dispersal of the Christian community from Jerusalem to the Transjordan on the outbreak of the Jewish War (A.D. 66) isolated it completely. The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, regarding Jesus as a man normally born of Joseph and Mary; they held he was the predestined Messiah, and in this capacity he would return to reign on earth. Hippolytus and Tertullian connect their name with one Ebion, presumably the apocryphal founder of the sect; but in fact the name is derived from the Hebrew for "poor," probably reflecting the title that the original Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem liked to be known.

2. Adoptionism.
   This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature a man who became the Son of God by Adoption; that is, that Jesus was virtuous man that God adopted and constituted him as His Son. The earliest extant writing that expresses this view is the Shepherd of Hermas, which is thought to be written by the brother of the bishop of Rome about A.D. 150. It taught that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Mary and Joseph; at his baptism the Spirit or Christ descended upon Jesus and at his crucifixion the Christ departed, leaving the man Jesus to suffer alone. A similar view was held by Theodotus, a learned Byzantine leather-merchant, who came to Rome from Byzantium about A.D. 190. He taught that Jesus was a man who was born of a virgin through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Because of the purity of his life, at his baptism the Spirit, or Christ, descended on him and he received power for his special ministry. But he was still not fully God; some of his followers believed that at his resurrection Jesus did become God. Theodotus was excommunicated by the Roman Pope Victor (186-198 A.D.) but his ideas were taken up by an Artemas (or, Artemon) and by another Theodotus, who was a banker. They founded a separate church early in the third century. The Adoptionist Controversy arose in 8th century Spain and it was condemned in the Charlemagne-sponsored synods of 792, 794 and 799 A.D.

3. Docetism.
   This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature divine, eliminating his humanity. The name Docetism (Greek, dokein = "to seem") indicated the distinctive thesis of it that Christ's man hood, hence his sufferings, were unreal, phantasmal, appearing only to be human. It claimed that Christ only appeared or seemed to be a man. This view clearly shows the Graeco-Oriental assumption the divine impassability and the inherent evil nature of matter. The first to mention expressly "Docetists" is Serapion of Antioch (c. 200 A.D.). It was not a simple heresy on its own, but was an attitude which infected a number of heresies, particularly Marcionism and Gnosticism. This is seen in the remark of Justin Martyr, "There are some who declare that Jesus Christ did not come in flesh but only as a spirit, and exhibited an appearance (phantasian) of flesh." Some Docetists even claimed that someone else was crucified in the place of Christ. Polycarp anathematized those who refused to "confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh" (Compare I John 4:13).

4. Arianism.
   This heresy is the view that Jesus was not fully divine although still related to God as a son to a father. The exact nature of this relation was widely discussed in the early church from A.D. 318 to 381 and it required 18 councils before it was fully settled, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 and ending with the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. The dispute started with the teachings of Arius, then a presiding as presbyter over the church district of Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt. The fundamental premise of his system is the affirmation of the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of God, the unoriginate source (agennetos arche) of all reality. Since God is unique, transcendent and indivisible, the being or essence (ousia) of the Godhead cannot be shared or communicated. For God to impart His substance to some other being, however exalted, would imply that He is divisible (diairetos) and subject to change (treptos), which is inconceivable. Moreover, if any other being were to participate in the divine nature in any valid sense, there would result a duality of divine beings, where the Godhead is by definition unique. Therefore whatever else exists must have come into existence, not by any communication of God's being, but by an act of creation on His part, that is, must have been called into existence out of nothing. Of course God is God the Father. What then is the relation of the Son or the Word to God, to the Father? Arius, given his view of God, logically concluded the following four things about this relation:
   1. The Son or the Word of God must be a creature, ktisma or poiema.
   2. As a creature the Son or the Word must have had a beginning.
   3. The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father.
   4. The Son must be liable to change and even sin (treptos; alloiotes).
   The net result of this teaching was to reduce the Word to demigod; even if infinitely transcended all other creatures, He Himself was no more than a creature in relation to God, the Father. The controversy came to be expressed by two Greek words: homoousias, the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and homoiousias, the Son is of similar essence as the Father. The Nicene creedal formula, saying that Son is homoousias with the Father, became the orthodox view, and Arianism was condemned.

5. Apollinarianism.
   This heresy was the view of the Person of Jesus that when the Logos (a perfect divine nature) assumed a human body in Jesus, it took the place of his human mind or soul. This was the view advanced by Apollinaris (c.310-c.390 A.D.), Bishop of Laodicea, in opposition to the doctrine of Arianism. Both views were held to be unorthodox and Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. Apollinaris who was a man of piety and ability, and highly esteemed even by those who disagreed with him, propounded the theory of the Person of Chirst which bears his name. Apollinarianism, assuming the Platonic distinction between body (soma), animal soul (psuche), and rational soul or mind (nous), as three distinct element in man, viewed Christ as having a human body and an animal soul, but not a human rational soul, as the seat of rationality and intelligence. Instead of a human rational soul, the divine Word of God took its place and was the divine nature in Christ. Thus Christ was not completely human. Apollinaris was a strong opponent of Arius but arrived at a similar view of the Person of Chirst as Arius. Arius appears to have held that the human nature of Christ consist merely of His body, with which the Word entered into union, so that He had no human soul. And he was driven to this by the exigency of his position. For since the Logos of Arius was a created being, and the soul of Christ, if He had one, must also have been created, the absurity would arise if there were two created intelligences in one Person, a thing that is inconceivable. But if the manhood of Christ consists merely of a body, this difficulty is evaded. Apollinaris borrowed a part of his antagonist's theory, but with the view of effectually guarding against his conclusions that the Son of God was a lesser God. Apollinaris assumed the Platonic tripartite view of man's nature, according to which man is composed of body, animal soul, and rational soul. Allowing Christ the possession of an animal soul, Apollinaris made the Logos take the place of the rational soul. His motive was to obviate the Arian conception of Christ, in investing the rational soul with the attribute of unchangeableness, and consequent sinlessness. And no doubt his theory does this effectually. But his theory stands or falls with the validity of Platonic tripartite division. After many years of controversy, Apollinarianism was condemned at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, and its author deposed from his bishopric.

6. Nestorianism.
   This heresy was the view of the Nestorians, who were followers of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 428). He objected to the use of the term "Theotokos", God-bearer, to refer to Mary as implying that the baby in Mary's womb had only one nature, divine nature. He proposed the use of the term "Christokos", Christ-bearer, to better emphasize the unity of the two natures of Jesus. Nestorius published these views in his Easter letter of A.D. 429. Cyril of Alexandria objected arguing that it was essential to maintain that God Himself had entered the womb of Mary; therefore she was "Theotokos" without qualification. Both men appealed to Rome. In A.D. 430 at a council held in Rome, Nestorius was condemned and deposed. He appealed to the emperor Theodosius II, who had appointed him patriarch, and the Synod of Ephesus was held in A.D. 431, which ultimately condemned, deposed and banished him to upper Egypt.

7. Monophysitism
   This heresy was the view of the Eutychians, who were the followers of Eutyches, an aged and muddle-headed archimandrite who, because of the favor and influence he enjoyed at court, found himself the rallying point of all who disliked the accord of A.D. 433, the Symbol of Union. On 8 Nov 448 A.D., at a meeting of the Standing Synod of Constantinople, he was denounced as heretical by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Eutyches refused to appear at the session on 12 Nov, and when he did appear, on 22 Nov, it was to hear sentence passed on himself. The verdict of those present, all supporters of the Union Symbol, was that he was a follower of Valentinus and Apollinarius, and he was accordingly deposed. Historically he is considered to be the founder of an extreme and virtually Docetic form of monophysitism, teaching that the Lord's humanity was totally absorbed by His divinity. He vigorously repudiated the suggestion of the two natures in the Incarnate as un-Scriptural and contrary to the teachings of the Fathers; he affirmed that the Incarnate had two natures before the incarnation, one after. Although Eutyches was excommunicated and deposed, he wrote to Pope Leo, but his letter was unsuccessful. On 13 June 449 A.D. Leo dispatched his famous Dogmatic Letter, or Tome, to Flavian, the local patriarch, who had tried Eutyches, and made clear his hostility to the One Nature doctrine.