4 (74) 2017 | Адам әлемі 97
the contrary, in the second phase of the development of the doctrine Sabelius
asserted that „Logos precedes the Father,“ so he presumes the Logos as „the
supreme divine principle“ [Ibid, pp. 192-202]. Though the monarchian views
were condemned by the efforts of Church Fathers of the time (Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Origen, Phirmilianus of Cappadocia), however their doctrinal theory continued
to exist and at the beginning of the IV century became the basis for one of the
most influential anti-Trinitarian movement – Arianism.
As a dogmatic movement the Arianism was not a new doctrine. It was
the renewed version of Paul of Samosata‘s dynamist monarchian ideology, the
continuation of the doctrine of Lucyan of Samosata. Within the framework of
the doctrine of “Theoanthropos“, the Alexandrian priest Arian, the founder of
Ariansim, was primarily interested in one question: how does the transcendental
essence join the finite body during the incarnation? Arianism entailed to a
real challenge for the Church while initiating a new stage in the development
of theological thought and leading to the convening of Ecumenical Councils.
(since the theological thought of the first centuries was mainly limited by the
interprestation of the term „Theoanthropos“). After the theological decisions of
the Nicean Council, the Arianism became more flexible, continued the struggle
against the dogmatic principle of the homousius, but its historical fate was already
predetermined [Schaff 1996, pp. 620-633].
Despite all the theological and philosophical disputes, at the early stages of
this debate none of the conflicting parties failed to form a comprehensive doctrine
on the unification of human and divine natures in the personality of Jesus Christ.
The theological systems of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen were based on the
idea that a true personality was needed for a real salvation. However, none of
these Church Fathers could have developed a systematic doctrine of Christ‘s
human self-consciousness. Moreover, they have not been able to overcome the
worldview restrictions, inherent for the era, in the interpretation of attributes of
human nature of Christ. The reason for this was the following: though Christ was
attributed human mind and free will, the following opinion prevailed that the
materialistic human body is „limited and passive“ which ultimately leads to a
„hidden“ docetism [Bethune-Baker 1903, pp. 81-82].
In the 60s of the IV century, during the struggle against Arianism in Trinitarian
issues, a new field of theological debate commenced called Christological debates.
With the start of Christological controversies, the stage of theological debate on
“Theoanthropos“ came to an end. The new Christologcal disputes have lasted
for more than 300 years. Although this transition was quite „smooth“ and at first
glance „neglected“, however historically it had more serious consequences for
the Ecumenical church, as it became the reason for the separation of the Eastern
Church [Bolotov 1994, pp. 134-135].
Hovhannisyan H. Armenian Apostolic Church and the commencment of Christological...
98 Адам әлемі | 4 (74) 2017
Basic principles of Apollinarian Christology
In the second half of the III century and the first half of the IV century,
theological debates were directed to the elaboration of the faith formulas and
resolutions referring to the divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity –
Jesus Christ. Fundamental works on the history of dogmas show that at this stage
the doctrine on two natures of Christ was still incomplete in many matters. The
incarnation was represented as „temporary incarnation of the divine“, „human
appropriation“, etc. There were no definite solutions to such issues as the human
body that was born as a result of incarnation, whether the Word and the body,
whether Christ was a real person or a God, who had „appropriated“ human nature,
where is the division line between divine and human nature, etc.? The same thing
should be said in the case of an exegetical solution to the problem as many other
issues remain unanswered – who suffer, hunger and die, are they conscious or
imaginary, who realizes their limitations – God, Man or Theoanthropos, etc.?
This is why it is absolutely natural to conclude that this stage of the history
of dogmatics has been marked by formation of a number of new theological
movements (the most influential were pre-Nicean perception of Logos, the Alogs,
the monarchianic anti-Trinitarianism and finally the Arianism) and the struggle
against them brought to the final formation of Orthodox Christology.
In the course of Christological debates mainly one question was discussed:
how the incarnation of transcendental divinity and the ultimate human body is
accomplished. This was represented by the problem of the relationship between
divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. The analysis of primary sources and
manuscripts shows that along with the formation of theological thought an attempt
has been made to solve the problem of relationship of divine and human natures
ontologically. And since the divine-human relationship has been settled from the
absolute contradictory position within the framework of religious metaphysics
(God is so inaccessible and above all that any equality between them is impossible),
the doctrine of „incomplete incorporation“ has been formed under which the flesh
of Word of God is unnatural, heavenly, or the same as „descended from heaven.“
Meanwhile, the issues, which concern the human nature of Christ, have been
organically linked to the doctrine of salvation, within the framework of which the
discussion of the Word-human relationship, clarifying the nature of incarnation,
was inevitable. And since in the context of this debate the transcendental factor
was prioritized, the incarnation of Christ was considered as a mere semblance
without any true reality (docetic). At the same time, within the framework of the
disputed issue the question of the relationship of divine and human natures of
Christ was discussed, in particular, how the transcendental God is united with
the immanent body, and how they interact within a single personality of Christ.
Although the popular view of professional literature links the commencement
of Christological debates with the name of Apollinarius Laodicean Jr., it should
Религиоведческие и исламоведческие исследования
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |
