Logos Christology and Council Meetings - Essay Example

This paper is an analysis on how the principles of the logos Christology influenced the decisionsof the council of Nicaea, and that of Chalcedon. It is important to understand that these councils were held during the periods in which there were great arguments on the nature of Christ, and whether Jesus Christ was divine or human. The Logos Christology originated with the second century apologists who wanted to have a defense against modalism. This doctrine was able to show that there was a difference between Jesus Christ, and God, who is the Father, and at the same time they are one. This concept of Logos Christology came out because of the various needs of the Greco-Roman Christians to reconcile their beliefs and faith, based on their philosophical believes regarding their culture. On this basis, Logos Christology is a Greco-Roman perspective based on a Jewish religious tradition. Christianity was a new religion, this fact was making it not to spread1. To overcome this limitation, Christian apologists had to show that Christianity had some common grounds with philosophy, as well as Judaism. Furthermore, many Romans had a perception that Christianity was a foreign superstition, and on this basis, the Christian apologists had pressure to demonstrate that the concepts of Christianity existed within the Roman community, even before the emergence of Christianity. Logos Christology depicts Christianity through the eyes of the philosophy of the Greeks2. The Council of Nicaea on the other hand was a council which was called to debate on assertions by Arius, a future Bishop of Alexandria that Jesus was subordinate to the father, and he is one of God’s creatures, just like us human beings. This conference was called by Emperor Constantine, on 20th of May 325. However, in this conference, the Church chose to follow the wisdom of God, as it was being revealed through the scriptures. This council came up with four very important assertions, and these assertions are3 , Christ was God. Jesus Christ and God the father are one. Jesus Christ is a begotten, and was not made. Jesus Christ took a human form because of the salvation of humanity. The council of Chalcedon on the other hand wrestled with the notion of the identity of Jesus Christ as man, and also as God. This council pitted two arguments against each other. The first argument is that Jesus Christ had two different natures. The first nature is that he was man, at the same time he was God. The other argument denoted that Jesus Christ only had a human body, but His soul was divine4 . On this basis, Jesus Christ is purely God, and not man God. However, a compromise was reached, with the resolution that Jesus was one Person, with two natures. On this basis, Jesus Christ performed his various roles for purposes of satisfying His God like nature, as well as for purposes of satisfying His human nature. The Council of Nicaea was greatly concerned with the identity of the divine nature of Jesus Christ. This was based on the assertions of a leading Scholar and future Bishop of Alexandria, Arius that Christ was just a human being like us, and He is a creation of God. On this basis, Jesus Christ is a subordinate of God. The resolutions of the council of Nicaea are contained in the Nicene Creed. This resolution denotes that the church believes in God, who is the Father, and the creator of all things, that which are invisible, and that which are visible5 . The members of this council also believed in Jesus Christ, who is God’s Son, and Begotten. Furthermore, this council believed that Jesus Christ is the Light of Light, a substance of God the Father, and He was born, and not created, and through Him, everything in earth and heaven were made. This Creed goes on to denote that Jesus Christ came from Heaven, because of our salvation, and became man, incarnate. He suffered, was killed, and on the third day, Jesus Christ rose again from the dead, ascending into heaven, and will come back to pass judgment on the dead, as well as on the living, and this is through the Holy Spirit6. Furthermore, the Creed goes on to denote that whoever says that there was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist, are misguided, and these people, the Church does not tolerate them. This is because they oppose God, and the scriptures of God7 . This Creed further goes on to denote that the church will not recognize anyone who holds the view that Jesus Christ, God’s Son is mutable, and can change. By carefully analyzing this creed from the council of Nicaea, we can denote that it has some of the elements that make up the logos Christology. For instance, Scholar denotes that the statement that the council, which denotes that God the Son, comprises of one substance as God the Father emanates from the Greek phrase, homoousion to patri 8. This is a phrase that denotes that the substance in which God the father possesses, is the same as the substance in which God the son possesses, and on this basis, they are numerically one. The religious implication of the above statement is that Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, is God, just as God the Father. On this basis, God the Father, and God the son are equal, and this is because they each possess a single divine nature. It is important to understand that the logo Christology was developed from some of the cultural traditions of the Greeks. The Greeks believed that God cannot possess human nature, and God does not have any human weaknesses. By denoting that God the son has a full divine nature, as God the Father, the members of the council of Nicaea were of the opinion that Jesus Christ does not have any form of weakness, thus conforming to the principles and the beliefs of the Greeks concerning the nature and power of God. Furthermore, the second part of this creed victimizes any philosophies that are incompatible with the teachings of the logos Christology9 . These teachings are that Jesus Christ who is God the Son, is a creation, and on this basis is mutable. Through these misguided beliefs, the principles of the Logos Christology denote that then Christianity does not exist. This is because Christianity is founded on the grounds that Jesus Christ is the Begotten Son of God, and He and God the father are one. It is therefore important to denote that based on the principles and elements of the logos Christology, the Council of Nicaea managed to answer the question regarding the deity of Jesus Christ and the concept of the biblical notion of Trinity 10. However, this council was unable to provide an answer on the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ. These aspects were later on answered through the doctrines emanating from the Council of Chalcedon. It is important to denote that the doctrines of Trinity had some very implications to Christology, and these implications were effectively addressed by the council of Chalcedon which took place in the year 451 AD. This council was pressed with finding a solution on how one person that is Jesus Christ had the capability of possessing two natures. If Jesus is God, and is the same as the father, then the council had to find a way of reconciling the humanity of Jesus Christ, with His divine stature, just as it was explained in the bible. Scholar denotes that the council of Chalcedon arose because of the misleading heresies of the Eutychean and Nestorian teachings11 . These teachings agreed on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, however, they inaccurately taught on the human nature of Jesus Christ. The error of the Nestorian teachings was the failure to unite the two natures of Jesus Christ into one Individual. According to the Nestorian teachings, the man Jesus was different from the God Jesus. On the other hand, the Eutychean teachings were directly opposite from the teachings of the Nestorians12 . These teachings created a hybrid nature of Christ in the sense that they recognized him as both human and divine. On this note, the Chalcedon council was called to create a balance of this belief, based on the scriptures. The solution that the Chalcedonian council sought was to affirm the duality of the nature of Jesus Christ, as well as the Unity of Jesus as a person 13. On this basis, the members of this council were forced to create an accurate understanding of Jesus Christ in relation to his humanity, deity, unity of one person, and a distinction of the two natures. These aspects are referred to as the Chalcedonian box, and this council played an important role in defining very important elements of the doctrine of Christology, and identifying the various boundaries of error, in understanding the nature of Jesus Christ14 . It is important to understand that this council played a significant in advancing the concepts of the logos Christology, since it confirmed the assertions and ideologies passed under the council of Nicaea. This council further anathematized anyone who taught that Christ only had a divine nature that is either he was God, or man, or it also cursed anyone who taught the mixture of the two natures of Christ. This council came up with the Chalcedonian declaration which affirmed that Jesus Christ belongs to the Godhead, that is Trinity, as well as to manhood, that is he had a human nature15. On this basis, they came up with the assertion that Jesus Christ was truly man, as well as truly God. This council goes on to denote that Jesus Christ, is the same and equal to God the Father, and this is because he belongs to the Godhead, and he is also the same and equal to the human nature, and this is because he took the human and descended into earth for purposes of saving mankind. On this basis, the council believed that the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ is different, and yet they are the same. This aspect is referred to as the hypostatic union. By affirming the notion that Jesus Christ is both human and divine, the council of Chalcedon was able to criticize the teachings of Eutyches, as well as the teachings of Nestorius, and on this basis, rectifying the error on the personality of Jesus Christ. This council of Chalcedon mainly relied on the scriptures of 1John Chapter 5 verses 10 which recognize Jesus Christ as Gods Son, as well as Mark Chapter 14 verses 21 which recognize Jesus Christ as Man’s son16. In conclusion, it is important to denote that these two councils were able to fulfill the concept that Jesus Christ has a divine nature, as well as a human nature. This was the main principle being advocated under the concept of logos Christology. Jesus Christ himself, while on earth, he denoted that he was the son of God, and he proved these assertion through the various miracles that he did. For instance, in John Chapter 5 verses 37, Jesus Himself denotes that God sent Him, who is His Father. Through this scripture, Jesus Christ acknowledges the fact that he is the son of God. This scripture is further strengthened by another scripture in John Chapter 3 verses 16, which denotes that Jesus is a Begotten Son of God. This therefore proves the fact that Jesus Christ was not created, and He is eternity, having been made of the same substance as God, the Father. It is therefore prudent to denote that these councils of Nicaea and that of Chalcedon recognized these facts, and refused to be embrace the wisdom of men, regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Instead, they chose to embrace the scripture, and identify the nature of Christ, as denoted by the scriptures. Bibliography: Ayres, L. (2010). Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairbairn, D. (2003). Grace and Christology in the early church. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, A. (2003). Theodulf of Orle̓ans: Charlemagnes spokesman against the Second Council of Nicaea. Aldershot [England: Ashgate/Variorum. Giakalis, A. (2005). Images of the divine the theology of icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Rev. ed.). Leiden: Brill. McGregor, R. R. (2013). Correspondence on Christology and grace. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Noll, M. A. (2012). Turning points: decisive moments in the history of Christianity (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. Price, R. (2005). The acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Samuel, V. C. (2001). The Council of Chalcedon re-examined. Philadelphia, PA?: Xlibris. Tanner, N. (2011). The church in council conciliar movements, religious practice and the papacy from Nicaea to Vatican II. London: I.B. Tauris. Read More