| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Apollinarism orApollinarianism is aChristological position proposed byApollinaris of Laodicea that argues thatJesus had a human body and sensitive human soul, but adivine mind and not a human rational mind, the DivineLogos taking the place of the latter.[1] It was deemedheretical by theFirst Council of Constantinople in 381 and virtually died out within the following decades.[2]
TheTrinity had been recognized at theFirst Council of Nicaea in 325, but debate about exactly what it meant continued. A rival to the more common belief thatJesus Christ had two natures wasmonophysitism ("one nature"), the doctrine that Christ had only one nature. Apollinarism andEutychianism were two forms of monophysitism. Apollinaris's rejection of Christ having a human mind was considered an over-reaction toArianism and its teaching that Christ was a lesser god.[3]
Theodoret charged Apollinaris with confounding the persons of theGodhead and giving in to the heretical ways ofSabellius.Basil of Caesarea accused him of abandoning the literal sense of the scripture, and taking it up wholly with the allegorical sense. His views were condemned in aSynod atAlexandria, underAthanasius of Alexandria, in 362, and later subdivided into several different heresies, the main ones of which were the Polemians and theAntidicomarianites.
Apollinaris, considering the rational soul and spirit as essentially liable to sin and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of saving Christ's impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption, except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus' humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logos in its stead.[1] Apollinarism was declared to be aheresy in 381 by theFirst Council of Constantinople.[2]
Christian philosopherWilliam Lane Craig has proposed a neo-Apollinarian Christology in which the divine Logos completes the human nature of Christ. Craig says his proposal is tentative and he welcomes critique and interaction from other scholars.[4]
Craig also clarifies "what I called a Neo-Apollinarian Christological model" by stating that
What I argue in my Neo-Apollinarian proposal is that theLogos brought to the human body just those properties which would make it a complete human nature – things likerationality,self-consciousness, freedom of the will, and so forth. Christ already possessed those in his divine nature, and it is in virtue of those that we are created in theimage of God. So when he brought those properties to the animal body – the human body – it completes it and makes it a human nature. Against Apollinarius, I want to say that Christ did have a complete human nature. He was truly God and truly man. Therefore his death on our behalf as our representative before God was efficacious.[5]
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Sollier, Joseph Francis (1907). "Apollinarianism". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728).Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1st ed.). James and John Knapton, et al.{{cite encyclopedia}}:Missing or empty|title= (help)
