4 (74) 2017 | Адам әлемі 101
Apollinarius allegedly „revenged“ by publishing his „new doctrine.“ In other
words, the historian considers the „private relations“ of bishops as a basis for the
formation of a new sect [Sozomen 1851, pp. 427-430].
We believe that these views embodied in church historiography do not reflect
the historical reality. A. Harnack is more objective in this issue who writes about
Apollinarius the following: „It is worth mentioning that the great bishop‘s love
for piety and truth who was compelled to choose between the interests of the faith
and the traditions, without hesitation gave the preference to the faith“ [Harnak
2001, p. 298]. It is also in harmony with the approach of many theologians who
also claim that Apollinarius’ teaching is characterized by „honesty and astounding
simplicity“ and that the “Apollinarius’ doctrine can serve as an example of how
a good thing can go too far“ and that „Apollinarius is a heretic not because of
curiosity, nor the evil, nor from the point of view of external temptations, but of
enthusiasm” [Erikson 2004, p. 608]. He did not want anything else and did not
seek anything other than the discovery of the doctrine of the Theoanthropos, as
he really thought that by rejecting the existence of human thought in Christ, by
accepting only the Divine nature, he would remain faithful to the Holy Book and
Traditions. That is why his plans are pure, and if his theory is to be viewed from
these perspectives, his honesty may unwillingly convince a historian in benefit to
him“ [Spaskii 2005, p. 28].
Conclusion
The doctrine of Apollinarius was an attempt to reconcile the unification of
transcendental divinity and immanent humanity in Jesus Christ. By his doctrine
he tried to resolve this problem by “sacrificing” the human rationality in favor
of divine Logos. For him the incarnation was not imlemented by the unification
of complete human and divine natures but the finite human nature was not
able to unify with infinite divinity and for resolving this issue he interpreted
the incarnation by his own terms and approaches. He asserted that the divine
Logos joined not to the human nature but only to the human flesh, therefore
contradicting to the Alexandrian orthodox theology.
The Armenian Apostolic Church rejected the Apollinarian doctrine, its
Christological ideas and the doctrine of incarnation from the viewpoint of orthodox
Trinitariansim. The Armenian Church, referring to the Nicean and Alexandrian
fathers, also asserted that one nature of God-Word inevitably assumes the belief
that Christ «is born from Holy Virgin and joined him inseparably» [Ibid].
The Christology of the Armenian Church radically rejects the monophysitism
(Apollinarianism, Euticheanism) and therefore qualifying Aarmenian Church as
monophysite is incompatible with reality as according to its doctrine, the body of
Jesus Christ is not «heavenly» or «descending from heaven» but earthly and this
is the reason why it is called the Son of Man. The faith to the orthodox Trinitarian
Hovhannisyan H. Armenian Apostolic Church and the commencment of Christological...
102 Адам әлемі | 4 (74) 2017
doctrine and Incarnation is the basis for such pure and unalloyed union which is
asserted by the Armenian church fathers: «not a foreign nature may be introduced
in homousius of Holy Trinity or deny the union as Eutiches or Apollinarius»
[Girk Tghtots 1994, p. 601].
All the above mentioned prove that in contrast to the monophysite doctrine
the Armenian Apostolic Church has consistently asserted its orthodox position
on the incorporative unity of perfect and unalloyed human and divine natures in
Jesus Christ
References
Գիրք Թղթոց, 1994.’Երուսաղէմ’. Սրբոց Յակոբեանց տպ., 711 էջ։
Болотов, В. 1994. ‘Лекции по истории древней Церкви. Т. IV’. История Церк-
ви в период Вселенских Соборов. М., изд.-во Спасо-Преображенского Валаамско-
го Монастыря, 599 с.
Гарнак, А. 2001. ‘История догматов’. Ч. II, Развитие церковной догмы. Ранее
христианство. В 2 т., Т. II, М., ООО Изд.-во АСТ, Харьков: изд.-во Фолио, 508 с.
Гусев, Д. 1872. ‘Ересь антитринитарiевъ третяго вђка’. Казань, Университет-
ская типография, 251 с.
Иванцов-Платонов, А. 1877. ‘М., прот. Ереси и расколы первыхъ трехъ вђковъ
Христианства’. Ч. I. Обозрђнiе источниковъ для исторiи древнђйшихъ сектъ. М.,
изд-во Университетской типографiи (М. Катковъ), 351 с.
Св.Ирений Лионский. 1996. ‘Пять книг обличения и опровержения лжеимен-
ного знания’. Творения. М., изд-во Православный паломник, 622 с.
Карташев, А. 2002. ‘Вселенские Соборы’. СПб., изд-во Библиополис, 560 с.
Лебедев, А. 1904. ‘Вселенскiе Соборы IV и V вековъ (Oбзор ихъ догматической
деятельности въ связи съ направленiями школ александрiйской и антиохiйской).
СПб., изд.- во И. Л. Тузова, 374 с.
Свиток Афанасiя, Александрийскаго Архиепископа, к Антиохийцам’. Свт.
Афанасий Великий. Творения в четырех томах. 1994. Т. III, М., изд-ие Спасо-Пре-
ображенского Валаамского Монастыря, 171 с.
Созомен Эрмий Саламинский. 1851. ‘Церковная История’. СПб., тип.-ия Фи-
шера, 636 с.
Спасский, А. 2005. ‘Историческая судьба сочинений Аполлинария Лаодикий-
ского, с кратким предварительным очерком его жизни’. СПб., изд-во Олега Абыш-
ко, 560 с.
Феодорит еписк. Кирский. 1852. ‘Церковная история’. СПб, тип.-ия Трусова, 380 с.
Эриксон, М. 2004. ‘Христианское богословие’. 3-е изд. СПб., изд.-во Санкт-
Петербургского христианского общества “Библия для всех”, 1088 с.
Baur, F. 1843. ‘Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung
Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung’. Die neuere Geschichte des Dogma, von
der Reformation bis in die neueste Zeit. Bd. 3. Tuebingen, C.F. Osiander, 1035 S.
Религиоведческие и исламоведческие исследования
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |
