Info

in whom 'he was timelessly before all time and from whom he emerged when the Father wanted it'.

Novatian professes both one God and Jesus Christ as God. His Logos-theology ascribes to the Son eternal existence in the Father. This pre-temporal conception and birth can only be reconciled with the one and only God, because the Son received everything which he is - viz., word, wisdom, power, light - 'from the Father' and is thus only called a 'divinity that has been handed down' (divinitas tradita). For this divinity is a 'power, transmitted by the Father and communicated to the Son', and returned again by the Son to the Father, the one true God (1 Corinthians 15.28). But Novatian does not say how this concept of the Son's divinity (which is predicated on the history of salvation) can be consistent with the eternal procession of the Son from the Father, nor does he articulate how the concept of a 'second person after the Father' can establish that difference between Father and Son that is emphasised by anti-monarchian theology.

Forms of monarchianist theology continued to exist well into the fourth century. It is precisely in opposition to this theology - which viewed the Logos immanent in the one God with no ontological difference and interpreted the confession of Nicaea (325) accordingly - that the real theme of the Christolog-ical debate arose: how does the unity of God and human being occur in the one Jesus Christ? How can confessing one Lord Jesus Christ indicate that the union of God and human being is real and that both divinity and humanity are actual? This debate questions the understanding of the Logos' incarnation and hence Nicaea's confession of God's only-begotten Son, who is of one nature (homoousios) with the Father, the one God and creator, and who, for our salvation, became 'flesh and man' (John 1.14).

The critique of Apollinarius and its antecedents: Athanasius, Marcellus and Noetus

Apollinarius of Laodicea (c. 310-90) became the focal point of such questioning. He was only partly aware of the theological assumptions underlying the position he was developing. Professing the incarnate Logos as a union of the human reality of Jesus (i.e., the flesh) with the Logos of the one God on the level of being, he engaged with two theological positions.

First, he rejected the Arian claim that everything human that the Bible reported about Christ was proper to the Logos, as such. This applied not only to statements of his lowliness, which characterise his kenosis (Philippians 2.7), but also to claims about the 'assumed glory' (Philippians 2.9) in the resurrection and ascension.

0 0

Post a comment