Podcasts about apollinarianism

Rita discussed the Gospel of Mark, chapter 2, verses 23 to 28, and the theological concept of Christ's nature, specifically addressing the heresy of Apollinarianism. She also explored the historical context of a biblical passage, the spiritual significance of the Gospel of Mark, and the teachings of St. John Crucistem and Victor of Antioch. Lastly, she discussed the historical approach of the School of Antioch and expressed her interest in exploring these historical aspects further. 00:00 Gospel of Mark and Hunger  Rita, the host of the Catholic Girl on the Radio, discussed the Gospel of Mark, chapter 2, verses 23 to 28. She explained that Jesus was passing through a field of grain on the Sabbath, and his disciples were picking the heads of grains, which the Pharisees considered unlawful. Jesus responded by referring to David's actions when he was hungry and ate the bread of offering, which was only lawful for the priests. Rita then delved into a commentary by Saint Augustine, who emphasized that not everyone who eats is necessarily hungry, as eating can also signify fellowship, connection, or emotional satisfaction. She also mentioned that an angel, like Raphael, could eat without being hungry. The discussion concluded with the idea that not everyone who's not eating is not eating because they're full, and vice versa. 05:24 Christ's Nature and Apollinarianism Rita discussed the theological concept of Christ's nature, specifically addressing the heresy of Apollinarianism. She explained that Apollinarianism proposed that Christ had a divine mind but lacked a fully human, rational mind, which was deemed heretical by the Church. Rita emphasized that Christ had to possess a fully human nature, including a rational mind, to fully redeem humanity. She also discussed the teachings of St. Augustine, who opposed Apollinarianism, arguing that Christ must be fully human to serve as a perfect mediator between God and humanity. 15:23 Exploring Biblical Context and Doctrine  Rita discussed the unexpected historical context of a biblical passage, noting that the Jews accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath, not theft, as they were plucking grain heads. She also explored St. Augustine's work on the written law and the concept of introducing new doctrine. Rita further discussed St. Bede's teachings on the importance of good works and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, likening them to a premium subscription package. 20:32 Gospel of Mark's Spiritual Significance Rita discussed the spiritual significance of the Gospel of Mark, focusing on the disciples passing through grain fields as a metaphor for holy teachers guiding those brought into the faith. She emphasized the importance of detachment from earthly desires and surrendering to the holy will of God. Rita also highlighted the role of communities, families, and friends in helping individuals grow spiritually and overcome impurities. 25:06 St. John Crucistem and Victor's Teachings  Rita discussed the teachings of St. John Crucistem and Victor of Antioch, focusing on their interpretations of the Gospel of Mark. She highlighted that the disciples of Christ, having been freed from symbolic observance and united to the Church, do not observe figurative Sabbath feasts. She also noted that Jesus used the example of David to refute the Pharisees' accusations against his disciples. Rita emphasized that the law does not hold power over the lawgiver, and that the law is given to those who are weak, not those who are perfect. 29:31 School of Antioch's Historical Approach Rita discussed the historical approach of the School of Antioch, which emphasized the historical reality of events and the moral application of Scripture. She mentioned that this approach influenced later medieval scholars and was sometimes included in katana or katana collection of early Christian commentaries on the Scriptures. Rita also shared her source for this information, an app that houses these commentaries.

In this episode, we're back exploring the early church. This time, we examine a heresy that started out as a response to another heresy. We will examine what it is, why people believe it, how the Bible deals with it, and what it means for us today. Website: thechristianexplorer.org Instagram: instagram.com/thechristianexplorer

Welcome to Class 3 of the "Foundations of Theology" I.Q. Church series taught by Luke and Jake! We're taking a break from our normally scheduled podcast series to bring you this teaching. In this session, we dive deep into two essential aspects of the Christian faith: Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the gift of salvation He brings. We explore how Jesus, being both fully God and fully human, is central to understanding the gospel and our relationship with God. Additionally, we unpack the multi-faceted nature of salvation and its transformative power in the believer's life. Key topics covered in this video: The Incarnation: Jesus as fully divine and fully human, and why that matters for salvation. An exploration of Christological heresies like Docetism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism, contrasted with the orthodox understanding of Christ. Salvation as God's gift: understanding atonement, faith, justification, adoption, and sanctification. The Gift of Salvation: Substitution and Sacrifice: Christ died in our place. Christus Victor: Christ is victorious over sin, death, and evil. Reunion and Recapitulation: Christ reunites us with God and restarts the creation project. Demonstration and Devotion: Christ shows us how to live and influences us toward devotion. We also explore key aspects of salvation: Faith: Belief and allegiance to Christ. Justification: Receiving the gift of grace by faith (Ephesians 2:8-10). Adoption: Being brought into God's family and confirmed as His children (Romans 8:22-25). Sanctification: Growing in holiness and being set apart for God's Kingdom (Hebrews 10:14). Movie Clips for Illustration: We use several movie clips to illustrate the Christological heresies and provide a visual understanding of key concepts before focusing on the correct biblical view of Jesus as one person with two natures.

As I was reading stuff online I came across an article from Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong against William Lane Craig's defense of monothelitism.Armstrong blames Craig's error on Sola Scriptura and rejecting the "infallibility" of the Roman Catholic church.While I agree that Craig is wrong about monothelitism, I also believe Armstrong is wrong about why.This episode addresses both the error of monothelitism and the error of Roman Catholic epistemology. I believe Craig's philosophy is the problem. I also believe history disproves Armstrong's "infallible church" idea and that Scripture is the authority for determining who Jesus is.Sources Cited:William Lane Craig, "#75 Monotheletism," Reasonable Faith, September 22, 2008.Dave Armstrong, "William Lane Craig's Christological Errors (Monothelitism +)," Patheos, Updated April 5, 2018.Dave Armstrong, "Sola Scriptura Can't Definitively Refute Christological Heresy," Patheos, Updated June 14, 2020.William Lane Craig, "Does Christ Have Two Wills or One?" drcraigvideos, July 15, 2022, educational video, 0:07 to 0:56."Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681)," New Advent, Accessed August 18, 2024."Discourse I" in "Four Discourses Against the Arians (Athanasius)," New Advent, Accessed August 18, 2024."Gregory of Nazianzus - Critique of Apollinarius and Apollinarianism," Early Church Texts, Accessed August 18, 2024.Scriptures Referenced:Isaiah 53:11Galatians 3:132 Corinthians 5:211 Peter 3:18Acts 2:22,30-31Hebrews 1:2-3; 2:16-18; 4:14-15; 5:7-9James 1:13-14*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to serve the community. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

As I was reading stuff online I came across an article from Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong against William Lane Craig's defense of monothelitism.Armstrong blames Craig's error on Sola Scriptura and rejecting the "infallibility" of the Roman Catholic church.While I agree that Craig is wrong about monothelitism, I also believe Armstrong is wrong about why.This episode addresses both the error of monothelitism and the error of Roman Catholic epistemology. I believe Craig's philosophy is the problem. I also believe history disproves Armstrong's "infallible church" idea and that Scripture is the authority for determining who Jesus is.Sources Cited:William Lane Craig, "#75 Monotheletism," Reasonable Faith, September 22, 2008.Dave Armstrong, "William Lane Craig's Christological Errors (Monothelitism +)," Patheos, Updated April 5, 2018.Dave Armstrong, "Sola Scriptura Can't Definitively Refute Christological Heresy," Patheos, Updated June 14, 2020.William Lane Craig, "Does Christ Have Two Wills or One?" drcraigvideos, July 15, 2022, educational video, 0:07 to 0:56."Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681)," New Advent, Accessed August 18, 2024."Discourse I" in "Four Discourses Against the Arians (Athanasius)," New Advent, Accessed August 18, 2024."Gregory of Nazianzus - Critique of Apollinarius and Apollinarianism," Early Church Texts, Accessed August 18, 2024.Scriptures Referenced:Isaiah 53:11Galatians 3:132 Corinthians 5:211 Peter 3:18Acts 2:22,30-31Hebrews 1:2-3; 2:16-18; 4:14-15; 5:7-9James 1:13-14See AlsoIs Jesus Like My Favorite Superhero? (Playlist feed)*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to serve the community. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

The Lord Jesus is our Great High Priest, both full Deity and full humanity alone qualify Him for this crucial task. What are the implications and dimensions of this role---Is there a modern Apollinarianism and modern forms of docetism--

Delegates from throughout the ecumenical (universal or "catholic") church met in Chalcedon in 451 AD to address the emergence of certain heresies surrounding the person and nature of Christ. Some were teaching that Jesus merely took on the material aspects of a human body (Apollinarianism). Others so distinguished Jesus' humanity and divinity that they conceived of each as involving a distinct person (Nestorianism). Finally, some so emphasized Christ's unity that they spoke of his divinity blending with his humanity to form a new mixed nature (Eutychianism or Monophysitism). The Council of Chalcedon thus responded to these errors, producing a confession of orthodoxy known as The Chalcedonian Definition (or the Symbol of Chalcedon). It affirmed that the incarnate Christ is one person with both a human and divine nature. But why does this statement matter, and are its distinctions all that important? What, if anything, can we learn from it today? Dr. Stephen Wellum joins Kirk in this episode to discuss the meaning and significance of this important historical document.

"The Word became flesh" in John 1:14 means that Jesus took on a human body. But did Christ take on a human soul too? In this episode, Barry Cooper discusses a heresy that seems slightly off but actually makes a world of difference. Read the transcript: https://simplyputpodcast.com/apollinarianism/ A donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

This is part 21 of the Early Church History class. In the fifth century Christians waged a theological civil war that ended in a massive church split. The issue was over the dual natures of Christ. How was he both divine and human? Did he have a human soul and a divine soul? Did his two natures fuse into one new nature? Although such abstruse distinctions would hardly get anyone's blood boiling today, these doctrinal distinctives resulted in a zero sum war for supremacy involving not only theological argumentation, but also political conniving and outright gangster tactics in the battles that led to the famous Council of Chalcedon in 451. Though church history textbooks often whitewash this period of theological creativity, this episode will give you a brief but unapologetic overview of the major players and their deeds in the dual natures controversy. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKQafdCPXAk&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=21&pp=iAQB —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Options for Two Natures Athanasius (c. 357) affirmed Jesus as God and man but did not explain how the natures united. He called Mary Theotokos (God-bearer). Apollinarius of Laodicea (d. 382) said the Word became flesh without assuming a human mind (Apollinarianism). Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) condemned Apollinarius and said that what God has not assumed, he has not healed. Eutyches of Constantinople (380-456) said the divine and human natures combined to form one new nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism) Nestorius (c. 429) denied Mary as Theotokos, calling her instead Christotokos, and allegedly taught that Christ had two distinct natures in two persons (Nestorianism/dyophysitism). Leo I said Christ had two natures united in person, though the two natures remained distinct (Chalcedonian dyophysitism). Condemning John Chrysostom John Chrysostom represented the Antiochene school of thought (as opposed to the Alexandrian). 397 Chrysostom became bishop of Constantinople. Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius, worked with Theophilus of Alexandria to depose Chrysostom. 403 Synod of the Oak deposed Chrysostom. 404 Chrysostom exiled. 407 Chrysostom marched to death Condemning Nestorius 428 Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople. He immediately began persecuting “heretics” as a defender of orthodoxy. 429 Anastasius of Antioch preached in Constantinople that no one should call Mary Pulcheria, sister of emperor Theodosius II, worked with Cyril of Alexandria to depose Nestorius. 431 1st Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius. Condemning Flavian 446 Flavian became bishop of Constantinople. 448 Held a synod that interrogated and condemned Eutyches 449 2nd Council of Ephesus reinstated Eutyches and condemned Flavian. Dioscorus of Alexandria instigated violence against Flavian that resulted in his death. Known to history as the “Robber Synod” Chalcedon 450 Theodosius II fell from his horse and died, leaving Pulcheria, his sister the nun, to marry Marcian, the new emperor. 451 Marcian and Pulcheria called the council at Chalcedon to reverse the 2nd Council of Ephesus and depose Dioscorus. Pope Leo's tome was read and accepted. After much debate, they codified the definition of Chalcedon, declaring Mary as Theotokos and Christ as having two natures in one person. When Nestorius read Leo's tome, he agreed with him and called it orthodox. Several important groups of churches, both Nestorian and Monophysite, rejected Chalcedon, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Persia. Review Deciding how the divine and human natures worked in Christ became the chief focus for many Christians in the fifth century. Apollinarius of Laodice proposed that the logos (Word) replaced the human mind, the rational part of the soul, in Christ (Apollinarianism). Eutyches proposed that Christ was one nature after the union of the divine and human (monophysitism). Pope Leo I said the two natures retained their distinctive characters in the one person of Christ (dyophysitism). Nestorius allegedly taught that the two natures in Christ were not united in one person (Nestorianism), though this was probably a misrepresentation of Cyril of Alexandria. Powerful Alexandrian bishops worked with powerful empresses to outmaneuver and depose Constantinopolitan bishops John Chrysostom in 404 and Nestorius in 431. Nestorius tried to steer people away from calling Mary Theotokos (God-bearer) by calling her Christotokos (Christ-bearer), but this offended many. Alexandrian bishops from Theophilus to Cyril to Dioscorus increasingly used gangster tactics to intimidate, coerce, beat, and even kill their theological-political opponents. The Chalcedonian definition of 451 condemned Nestorius and Eutyches while endorsing Cyril and Leo, promoting a diophysite statement of two natures in one person, united but not confused. Though trumpeted as "orthodox", Chalcedon alienated a huge portion of Christianity, including the Coptic Church, Ethiopian Church, Syrian Church, Armenian Church, and Assyrian Church.

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues his investigation of Apollinarianism by looking first at the life of St Gregory of Nyssa, and then at St. Gregory's Letter to Theophilus of Apollonaris. For the content of the letter: luxchristi.wordpress.com. Doxamoot: tinyurl.com/doxamoot2023 Orthodoxy & Ed conference: tinyurl.com/OrthodoxEDU Florovsky Campaign: tinyurl.com/DonateFlorovsky

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues his investigation of Apollinarianism by looking first at the life of St Gregory of Nyssa, and then at St. Gregory's Letter to Theophilus of Apollonaris. For the content of the letter: luxchristi.wordpress.com. Doxamoot: tinyurl.com/doxamoot2023 Orthodoxy & Ed conference: tinyurl.com/OrthodoxEDU Florovsky Campaign: tinyurl.com/DonateFlorovsky

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues his investigation of Apollinarianism by looking first at the life of St Gregory of Nyssa, and then at St. Gregory's Letter to Theophilus of Apollonaris. For the content of the letter: luxchristi.wordpress.com. Doxamoot: tinyurl.com/doxamoot2023 Orthodoxy & Ed conference: tinyurl.com/OrthodoxEDU Florovsky Campaign: tinyurl.com/DonateFlorovsky

Dr. Jenkins in this episode examines the life of one of the great saints of the Church in St. Gregory the Theologian, whose defense of the Faith against Apollinarianism (to be discussed next week) proved crucial. The Vicissitudes of his life are this episodes subject. Details on Doxamoot can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/2ajczyna On Orthodoxy & Education here: https://tinyurl.com/3u6nvxph And the Florovsky fundraiser here: https://tinyurl.com/2ncjupea

Dr. Jenkins in this episode examines the life of one of the great saints of the Church in St. Gregory the Theologian, whose defense of the Faith against Apollinarianism (to be discussed next week) proved crucial. The Vicissitudes of his life are this episodes subject. Details on Doxamoot can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/2ajczyna On Orthodoxy & Education here: https://tinyurl.com/3u6nvxph And the Florovsky fundraiser here: https://tinyurl.com/2ncjupea

Dr. Jenkins in this episode examines the life of one of the great saints of the Church in St. Gregory the Theologian, whose defense of the Faith against Apollinarianism (to be discussed next week) proved crucial. The Vicissitudes of his life are this episodes subject. Details on Doxamoot can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/2ajczyna On Orthodoxy & Education here: https://tinyurl.com/3u6nvxph And the Florovsky fundraiser here: https://tinyurl.com/2ncjupea

This week Dr. Jenkins begins a discussion of the heresy of Apollinarianism, a heresy touching the question what does it mean that the Word became Flesh. Far more than just an ancient error, it has champions even today. Information on this episode can be found at luxchristi.wordpress.com, and information on Doxamoot at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/out-of-the-darkness-one-great-thing-to-love-doxamoot-2023-tickets-602985244097?aff=ebdshpsearchautocomplete

This week Dr. Jenkins begins a discussion of the heresy of Apollinarianism, a heresy touching the question what does it mean that the Word became Flesh. Far more than just an ancient error, it has champions even today. Information on this episode can be found at luxchristi.wordpress.com, and information on Doxamoot at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/out-of-the-darkness-one-great-thing-to-love-doxamoot-2023-tickets-602985244097?aff=ebdshpsearchautocomplete

This week Dr. Jenkins begins a discussion of the heresy of Apollinarianism, a heresy touching the question what does it mean that the Word became Flesh. Far more than just an ancient error, it has champions even today. Information on this episode can be found at luxchristi.wordpress.com, and information on Doxamoot at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/out-of-the-darkness-one-great-thing-to-love-doxamoot-2023-tickets-602985244097?aff=ebdshpsearchautocomplete

Title: the boy jesus Text: Luke 2:41-52 RC Sproul: This was the age at which the Jewish boy became a man, and went through the bar-mitzvah, which simply means ‘son of the commandment', entering into the full measure of adult commitment to the covenant of Moses. -- RC Sproul: “It was customary in ancient Israel for boys to be taken to the temple a year or two in advance of their bar-mitzvah, so that they might become familiar with the operations of the temple and of the educational programmes of the rabbis there. It was almost like a trial run, a time of orientation, so that a child, when he did reach thirteen, would have had some preparation. So Jesus went to Jerusalem at twelve, perhaps for his initial orientation of the structures and customs of the temple.” Phillip Ryken: “Going to Passover must have been a great experience for a twelve-year-old boy. The streets of Jerusalem were crammed with as many as two hundred thousand pilgrims and one hundred thousand sheep for sacrifices. At that age Jesus may well have had the run of the city, with all its sights and sounds. He would have feasted with friends. He would have gone up to the temple to pray and sing psalms. On the night of Passover he would have worshiped with his family. As his father prepared the sacrificial lamb, Jesus would have heard the story of salvation all over again. Joseph would have reminded his eldest son how God rescued his people from slavery and delivered them from death in Egypt.” 1) JESUS WAS FULLY BOY (v41-46, 48) 2) BOY JESUS was FULLY GOD (v46-49) RC Sproul: After the feast it was the custom for the theologians of Israel to remain there for a few days to have what they called ‘theological disputations', in which they would share the latest ideas and insights into theology. The students of the rabbis would sit at their feet, for their learning process was very similar to that of Socrates and Plato at the Academy: it was through questions and answers. The students would ask the rabbi questions, and at times, as a teaching technique, the rabbi would return questions to the students. It was in that situation that Jesus was found, astonishing everybody with his unbelievable understanding and insight to these things, and all who saw him were amazed. Phillip Ryken: Jesus referred to God as “my Father.” This intimate expression was totally new. No one had ever said anything like it before. To be sure, the fatherhood of God is present in the Old Testament. There are at least a dozen places where the Scripture refers to God as Father. However, those who are speaking always refer to themselves in the plural. That is, people spoke of God as “our Father,” but no one ever called him “my Father.” God's paternity was more a general concept than a personal relationship. Even men like Moses and David, who enjoyed special intimacy with God, never dared to claim that he was their Father. But Jesus said it as if it were the most natural thing in the world. If the temple was God's house, then it was his Father's house, because he knew that God was his Father. -- RC Sproul: How significant that the first recorded words of Jesus are ones that go to the heart of his own destiny, to his vocation and calling as the Messiah. Here Jesus is consciously identifying himself as the Son of God, because it was his Father's house. -- Phil Ryken: He wanted to stay in his Father's presence, lingering at the place where his heart could echo the joy he had always experienced as the eternal and preexistent Son. -- John 17:5 – “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” -- John 17:24b – “ You loved me before the foundation of the world.” 3) THE HYPOSTATIC UNION IS A PROFOUND MYSTERY, BUT ALSO A PROFOUND TREASURE (v50-52) Incarnation: "Incarnation is the word used to explain how the second member of the Trinity entered into human history in flesh as the God-man Jesus Christ." [Same as previously made slide] Hypostatic Union - JESUS CHRIST HAS TWO NATURES: HUMANITY & DEITY - JESUS IS NOT TWO PERSONS: BOTH NATURES ARE MYSTERIOUSLY & MIRACULOUSLY UNITED IN ONE PERSON [Same as previously made slide] A.T. Robertson: Luke gives us the only glimpse that we have of the boy Jesus, with a boy's hunger for knowledge and yearning for future service, this boy who already had the consciousness of a peculiar relationship to God his Father, and yet who went back to Nazareth in obedience to Joseph and Mary to toil at the carpenter's bench for eighteen more years. -- Apollinarianism (from Phillip Ryken): The false teaching that Jesus had the mind of God in the body of a man. -- Phillip Ryken: “Like his body, the mind of Christ had to develop. If we doubt this, all we need to do is look again at the Scripture, which says that Jesus “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). Here Luke “expressly tells us that the intellectual, moral and spiritual growth of Jesus as a Child was just as real as His physical growth. He was completely subject to the ordinary laws of physical and intellectual development.” As he submitted to the very laws that he had created, Jesus was taught things that he did not know.” -- Kenosis theory (from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology): The theory that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth as a man (from the Greek verb kenoo, which means to “empty”). -- Phillip Ryken: Perhaps some examples will help put this into perspective. Consider some of the things that Jesus did not know. When Jesus was two, he was not able to perform the complex computations of differential calculus; he couldn't even “solve for x.” When he was six, he did not know the percentage of hydrogen in Jupiter's atmosphere, or the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri… With respect to his divine nature, these were things that he had always known, but with respect to his human nature, they were among the many things that he did not know during his time on earth. John Calvin went so far as to say that there would be “no impropriety in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man”… These statements stagger the mind. If we sometimes take the incarnation for granted, it can only be because we have not wrestled with its full implications. -- Incarnation Summarized (from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology): Remaining what he was, he became what he was not.

Join us in our latest sermon series entitled, "Getting Christmas Right," as we study and find out why the birth of Christ matters to the Christian faith. Follow along with the message here: https://bit.ly/3FHYD43 If you have any questions or would like to leave a comment, please feel free to email us at info@ravenswoodbaptist.org

In this week's episode we talk about Apollinarianism and William Lane Craig's proposal of Neo-Apollinarianism asking whether or not this proposal is a valid/orthodox proposal. We begin by briefly explaining the controversy of Apollinarianism, then move on to explaining WLC's position and examining it.   Article mentioned in the episode: https://reformedarsenal.com/william-lane-craig-neo-apollinarianism-5/    Episode landing page: https://christisthecure.org/2022/11/17/neo-apollinarianism-of-william-lane-craig-a-valid-orthodox-proposal/    Christ is the Cure is subscriber supported: Join the support team at patreon.com/christisthecure or go to https://christisthecure.org/support-citc/  

Understanding the dual nature of Christ is key to understanding who God is. This is part two of a two-part episode exploring this topic. This also wraps up our ongoing series on doctrine, for now...Subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Coming soon to Apple Music!Reach out to us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram with your take on this discussion.Visit our home on the web: 2pentecostals.com

What is Apollinarianism? Why did the early church so strongly condemn Apollinarianism as a heresy? What did the Apollinarianists believe?

Introduction In the fourth century, the Council of Nicea settled the question of the Lord's deity, and consequently became the touchstone that enables us to address various Trinitarian heresies. A Trinitarian heresy has to do with the unity of the Godhead, and the tri-personal nature of God's existence, and all without reference to the creation. What is God like in Himself? In the fifth century, the Council of Chalcedon addressed the relationship of the human and divine in Jesus of Nazareth, a question that arose as a result of the Incarnation. Errors on this question are usually called Christological heresies. The Text “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. 1:18–20). Summary of the Text We have seen that the apostles held two very distinct conceptions of the Lord Jesus. On the one hand, they recognized His full humanity. We saw Him, John says, and we touched Him (1 John 1:1). At the same time, they also speak easily and readily of Christ as a cosmic Lord, as in our text this morning. And moreover they speak of Him as one integrated personality. Our Lord Jesus is the head of the whole body, the church (v. 18), and He is the arche of all creation (v. 18). He is the integration point of all things, which is the word underneath “beginning.” He is the firstborn from among the dead, and this privileged position makes it plain that He is to have the preeminence (v. 18). All the fullness of all things dwells in Him, and this was the pleasure of the Father (v. 19). Everything in this fragmented creation order was shattered and broken, and Christ's mission was to make peace for all of it, reconciling all of it to Himself (v. 20). But this soaring rhetoric comes down to earth with a crash when we see that it is to be accomplished through the “blood of His cross.” This was blood that was shed, remember, because of the collapse of Pontius Pilate in the face of a mob. The Nub This is the heart of what Chalcedon is testifying to. “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man . . . not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.” Remember that we are simply stating what Scripture requires us to state, and is not an attempt to “do the math.” This confession is admittedly miraculous, and this means that you won't be able to get your mind fully around it. You can get your mind around the fact that we confess two distinct natures united in one person, without any muddling of them. A Quick Run Down of Some Heresies Heresies often arise as the result of people trying to make all the pieces fit together within the tiny confines of their own minds. Some people have an itch to make it all make sense to them, and the result is tiny (and tinny) dogmas. Ebionism holds that Jesus was the Messiah, but just an ordinary man, with Joseph and Mary as his parents. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians in the early years of the church. People who want to say that “Jesus was a great moral teacher” represent a modern form of this. Docetism holds that Jesus was completely divine, and that His humanity was only an apparition. The word comes from the Greek verb dokein, which means “to seem.” Adoptionism holds that Jesus was fully human, and was “adopted” as the Son of God at a point in time, whether at his baptism or at his resurrection. Apollinarianism taught that the Word (a perfect divine nature) took on a human body in Jesus, replacing his human soul and mind. Thus Jesus was God inside and man outside. Nestorianism is the view that denies the unity of the person of Christ, suggesting that there were two natures, two persons going on, loosely joined. In the interests of fairness, it should be mentioned that there are good arguments suggesting that Nestorius himself was not a Nestorian. Through the Blood of His Cross And so here is our confession, here is our faith. We are Christians, which means that our lives center on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we get Chalcedon wrong, we are corrupting the doctrine of His person. And if we do that, then we empty the cross of its dynamic power. The cross has the ability to fascinate all men, and to draw them to God, precisely because of the identity of the one who died there. Unless Jesus were a man, He could not die. He could not shed His blood for us unless He had blood. Unless Jesus were God, His death would not have the ultimate salvific meaning that it does. And so it is that we acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth, fully God and fully man, died on the cross for the sins of the world. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16–17)

When we read in John 1:14 that "the Word became flesh," we recognize that Jesus took on a human body. But did Christ take on a human soul too? Today, Barry Cooper discusses a fourth-century heresy that seems slightly off but actually makes a world of difference. Read the transcript: https://simplyputpodcast.com/apollinarianism/

To read more on Dr. Craig's view of the incarnation check out the book linked below. https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland-ebook/dp/B075QPCCL1/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1MKYKBDPLM60B&dchild=1&keywords=philosophical+foundations+for+a+christian+worldview&qid=1628388216&s=books&sprefix=philosophical+foundations%2Caps%2C211&sr=1-3 Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Go to https://www.patreon.com/theanalyticchristian For more resources on Christian philosophy & theology, go to https://www.theanalyticchristian.com

Join us as Luke and Jae sit down with Savanna Moore, a “hylomorphic dualist” (a pretentious phrase that one can just drop into conversation) who is a senior Worship Leadership major at Anderson University to talk about heresy! Heresy, as defined in the episode, is a denial of one of the central tenants or doctrines of Christianity. This typically has to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, etc.  In the first part of the episode, we talk about which heresies we think are the silliest and the most problematic. Savanna brings up the silliness of Gnosticism, the belief that, at the most basic level, only spiritual things are good, and the physical is wholly bad. This has been a consistent problem throughout church history even into today’s church (Uh oh). The Christian life is not only about getting to heaven when we die. It is about the bodily resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. Some honorable mentions: Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Modalism. Before moving on to more serious discussion, we begin to make a distinction between being ignorant of something and choosing heresy. The former isn’t something to be condemned for; the latter is. In the second part of the episode, Savanna makes it clear that Catholics are not heretics. Far from it. This comes from a gross misunderstanding of Catholicism. It is important to note the difference between Absolutes, Convictions, and Opinions. Absolutes are what separate heretics from orthodoxy Christianity; Convictions are what separate one denomination from another.  We then take a dive into why one should know about heresy, practically. For one, heresy is a part of church history and we should know what the church has experienced in the past. Second, these heresies didn’t come out of nowhere. Many of the people that first espoused these heresies were intelligent people that were misled by wrong interpretation of the Bible. We have a well of information from history that we can draw from to discern what is right and wrong belief. It is arrogant, if not dangerous, to not look at the 5,000 years of interpretation and thinking that is at our fingertips. In the third part of the episode, we talk about how seeking after knowledge breeds humility. If we gain pride as we gain knowledge, we are not searching with the correct heart. But this does not mean that we all have to learn in the same way. We all learn very differently, so some of us might learn better from a video than we learn from a 600-page book. We talk about how we have to grapple with difficult and challenging beliefs and not merely just allow these difficult topics to remain in our world without being wrestled with. Theology, good and deep theology, should have incredible impacts on every aspect of our lives. We then discuss how faith and reason should interact with one another. Reason is not faith but should instead serve our faith. For more information on what we're all about here at The Audibility Podcast, go ahead and check out our website https://audibilitypodcast.com, and to get connected with us, follow us on Instagram, @audibilitypodcast

We are continuing a series of episodes comparing Jesus to superheroes. This series will tackle wrong ideas about Jesus from church history in chronological order. A superhero will represent each of these ideas. Is Jesus Like Iron Man? How are Jesus and Iron Man (Tony Stark) similar? They are both fully human. They are both highly intelligent. They both sacrificed the wealth they have to save the world. How are Jesus and Iron Man different? Iron Man is a human person driving a super ("divine") suit. Jesus is a divine person driving a human suit...or, wait...is that right? Who was Apollinaris the Younger and what is Apollinarianism? Apollinaris let his philosophy define his theology. Apollinaris fought Arianism so hard that he sacrificed the full humanity of Jesus. He basically believed that Jesus was "God in a bod"--that Jesus replaced the rational mind of his human nature with His own divine Logos. Who were the Cappadocian fathers? Basil of Caesarea Gregory of Nyssa Gregory of Nazianzus How did Gregory of Nazianzus argue against Apollinarianism? "What is not assumed is not healed" Assuming a human rational soul does not subject Jesus to corruption any more than a body would. Jesus is not "man" or the "Son of Man" if He didn't take on the whole human nature. Are there problems with apologist William Lane Craig's "neo-Apollinarianism"? Sources Cited: Early Church Texts, "https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/gregoryofnaz_critique_of_apolliniarianism.htm (Gregory of Nazianzus - Critique of Apollinarius and Apollinarianism)" Reasonable Faith, "https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/does-dr.-craig-have-an-orthodox-christology (Does Dr. Craig Have an Orthodox Christology?)" Scriptures Referenced: 2 Corinthians 8:9 Hebrews 2:6-9, 17 ***** Like what you hear? https://www.truthspresso.com/donate (Donate) to Truthspresso and give a shot of support! *****

Full Text of ReadingsFriday of the Second Week of Advent Lectionary: 185All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Pope St. DamasusSaint Damasus was born in Rome at the beginning of the fourth century. His father, a widower, had received Holy Orders there and served as parish priest in the church of St. Laurence.Damasus was archdeacon of the Roman Church in 355 when the Pope, Saint Liberius, was banished to Berda.Damases followed him into exile, but afterwards returned to Rome. On the death of Saint Liberius in 366, our Saint was chosen to succeed him, at the age of sixty-two. A certain Ursinus, jealous of his election and desiring for himself that high office, had himself proclaimed pope by his followers, inciting a revolt against Damasus in Rome, in which 137 people died. The holy Pope did not choose to resort to armed defense, but the Emperor Valentinian, to defend him, drove the usurper from Rome for a time. Later he returned, and finding accomplices for his evil intentions, accused the holy Pontiff of adultery. Saint Damasus took only such action as was becoming to the common father of the faithful. He assembled a synod of forty-four bishops, in which he justified himself so well that the calumniators were excommunicated and banished.Having freed the Church of this new schism, Saint Damasus turned his attention to the extirpation of Arianism in the West and of Apollinarianism in the East, and for this purpose convened several councils. He sent Saint Zenobius, later bishop of Florence, to Constantinople in 381 to console the faithful, cruelly persecuted by the Emperor Valens. He commanded Saint Jerome to prepare a correct Latin version of the Bible, since known as the Vulgate, andhe ordered the Psalms to be sung accordingly. He rebuilt and adorned the Church of Saint Laurence, still called Saint Laurence in Damaso. He caused all the springs of the Vatican to be drained, which were inundating the tombs of the holy persons buried there, and he decorated the sepulchers of a great number of martyrs in the cemeteries, adorning them with epitaphs in verse.Saint Damasus is praised by Theodoret as head of the famous doctors of divine grace of the Latin church. The General Council of Chalcedon calls him the "honor and glory of Rome." Having reigned for eighteen years and two months, he died on December 10, 384, when he was nearly eighty years old. In the eighth century, his relics were definitively placed in the church of Saint Laurence in Damaso, except for his head, which was conserved in the Basilica of Saint Peter. He presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture. Throughout his papacy, St. Damasus spoke out against major heresies in the church and encouraged production of the Vulgate Bible with his support for St. Jerome. He helped reconcile the relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Antioch, and encouraged the veneration of martyrs. Saint of the Day Copyright CNA, Catholic News Agency

This morning we are continuing our study in the book of Hebrews and so if you have your Bibles please turn with me to Hebrews 2:10-18. Hear now the word of the Lord from Hebrews 2: 10-18. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” 13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 2:10-18, ESV Brothers and sisters this is the word of the Lord. Well, there's an old popular account from history which historians, I found out this week, actually doubt that it ever happened, but it makes for a good story, so I'll tell it anyway. During the French Revolution, in the late 18th century, the queen of France at the time, whose name was Marie Antoinette, was informed one day that all of her subjects were going hungry; they had no bread to eat and they were starving. Yet after being told of the plight of her subjects she responded with one of the most cold callous and out of touch compassionless things a person of her status and wealth could have said. You may know the quote she's famously purported to have responded with, “If they have no bread, well then let them eat cake.” Now one of the lessons that we could draw from that story is how a life that knows nothing except royalty and extravagance could be so out of touch with the needs of the average citizen. You know this was apparently the case with the French monarchy, if there's any truth to that story at all. It's also probably also been the case with most monarchies throughout human history. Yet as Americans who've never known a monarchy, who even rebelled against a monarchy, well this is the last thing we want of our leaders. By and large we don't want Marie Antoinette's' leading us. We don't want leaders who can't relate with us or leaders who know nothing about the plights of the average Joe citizen. In fact, during an election cycle, something we know a little bit about recently, candidates who have rags to riches stories tend to play up their stories so that they can relate with the average Joe American. As I understand it, in American politics, at least when a candidate is perceived as more relatable or more likeable, well it generally helps their electability. All that being said, as Americans we tend to be very skeptical of leaders in our lives, both political leaders or spiritual leaders or otherwise, who we perceive to be completely out of touch with our needs. Those aren't the kind of leaders we want calling the shots. Instead, we want leaders who can relate with us, leaders who can sympathize with us and who know our needs. Well, in this vein our passage this morning emphasizes that the Lord, though he's categorically other than us, he is creator after all and we are creature, he's perfect in all of his works, in all of his attributes, and we are decidedly not. He's nevertheless a God who can relate with us. A God who isn't in the slightest out of touch with our most basic and fundamental human needs. Now if you recall we've heard thus far in Hebrews, particularly in chapter one, a lot about the divine nature of Jesus Christ the Son of God. We heard for instance of his pre-existence, that there was never a time when the Son was not. We heard of the Son's exalted reign in the heavenly places. In all of that we heard how the Son, together with the Father and the Spirit, are to be worshiped and glorified by the church. Now in chapter 2 we hear that this one who is the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, stepped into human history in the fullness of time. He took upon himself human flesh and blood together with all of our weaknesses and frailties as humans, with the exception of sin, in order that he might perfectly represent us before God and lead us out of the bondage of sin and death, to save us. In this we learn that the one who represents us, the one who is Son, the one who saves us, the one who leads us as Christians, the one who is the head over all the church, is not someone who cannot relate with us. In fact, he represents us, delivers us, and saves us by becoming one with us. That's our big idea this morning, The Son delivers us by becoming one with our humanity. As Gregory of Nazianzus said it some 1700 years ago, “what the Son of God did not assume, he did not redeem.” That is if Jesus Christ, the Son of God, didn't take upon himself a true body and soul and rational human capacities like you and me, well he couldn't have saved us. It would have been impossible for him to represent us in his life and to deliver and save us in his death. It was necessary for the gospel that he become united with us in our humanity. It was necessary that he become man. This is what our passage teaches us this morning. So, as we study this passage, we home in on the Son's incarnation, that is his taking on human flesh some 2,000 years ago. We see the purposes of the incarnation expounded upon in our passage. We're going to see three things. 1. The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Lead Us into Glory 2. The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Lead Us Out of Slavery 3. The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Deal with our Sin The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Lead Us into Glory Again, the big theme of this passage is that the one who stepped into human history to save us, the Son of God Jesus Christ, was in his incarnation united with our humanity. He became fully man with the exception of sin. It's not as if he simply appeared to be man, but he really wasn't. That's an early church heresy known as Docetism. It's also not as if he was only partly human, as if maybe he was two-thirds human, but he had a superhuman soul; that's an early church heresy known as Apollinarianism. No, he was fully God and, in the incarnation, fully a hundred percent man too. We see this throughout our passage. We hear, for example in verse 11, that we and the Son are from one. The ESV says one source, but literally the Greek is, “we are from one”. The intent there is probably to communicate that we and Jesus, by virtue of his incarnation, we share in a common human nature. Then we read in verse 14 about how the Son Jesus Christ took upon himself flesh and blood just like us. So, in stepping into human history some 2000 years ago, in the incarnation, the Son of God took upon himself the same humanity as you and me. This is the theological bedrock upon which everything else we read in this passage is based. That is in order to save us and lead us, as we need, out of the captivity of sin and death, the Son of God had to represent us. The only way for him to have done that was to be made man, like us. As an aside if you have a catechism and you were to go to Westminster Larger Catechism question and answer 39m that unpacks for us very well and very eloquently all the reasons why the Son of God had to become man. I'm not going to get into that, but if you're looking for further studies after the sermon, Larger Catechism 39 would be a good place to go. So, this is the starting point, the theological bedrock that Jesus Christ the Son of God became man, took upon himself flesh and blood like us. As the author of Hebrews begins to unpack for us the significance of the incarnation, we learn right out of the gate that the Son took upon himself our nature with a very particular goal or purpose in mind, that is to lead us into glory. Understand that Jesus didn't become man very simply only to represent us in his humanity or in our humanity or to take a walk in our skin and that's it. As an aside, I know that there are times when as a dad I'll often immerse myself into the silliness and craziness of my children's existence in order to relate with them. At the end of the day, if I was only ever a child like them, well the first problem would be that Lori had one more child than she signed up for. More significantly I could never lead my children where they need to go. Now that's an imperfect illustration, as most illustrations are, but in the same way that it's not enough for me to just relate with my children, so too we need a God who can relate with us in our humanity but who can also lead us in our humanity in to glory. We need someone who can, as our catechism puts it, advance our nature. This is what Jesus Christ did through the incarnation, he represented us, identified with us, represented us as the new Adam, and brought us where Adam didn't go and where we couldn't have gone, that is into glory. We hear in verse 10, for example, that Jesus is described for us as the founder of our salvation. Now other English translations, if you're looking at another one, variously translate this word it. Actually, seems like every English translation adopts a slightly different nuance to this. Some translate this as “author of our salvation”, others as “pioneer of our salvation”, “captain of our salvation”. Elsewhere in the New Testament this word is very simply translated as a “leader”. While each of those translations I think rightly gets at the main idea here that Jesus stands at the headwaters of our salvation, I think a translation such as leader or pioneer captures best what our author is getting at here because the idea is that Jesus is leading us. He's leading the people of God in and through the incarnation to a place that we could not go on our own. Just as the people of God in the Old Testament needed a Moses or a Joshua to lead them into the uncharted territory of Canaan, well so too we need somebody who can lead us and pioneer the way into glory. This is what Jesus Christ the Son of God did. I like how the puritan John Owen puts it, he writes, “Jesus's purpose in the incarnation was not to carry us into a new Canaan and bring us into a wealthy country, into an earthly country. Rather he wanted his children in and through the Messiah to come into eternal glory with himself in heaven.” So, Jesus is our leader, he's our pioneer who in and through his incarnation leads his children, you and me, ultimately into glory. Yet we also know that in leading the way to glory Jesus himself walked a path of suffering and death. We learned specifically in our passage, at the end of verse 10, that in bringing many sons to glory, that's the stated purpose right at the outset for the incarnation, that Jesus also had to be made perfect through suffering. In other words, in order for the Son of God Jesus Christ to represent us perfectly in the flesh, as the perfect mediator and savior, well Jesus Christ also had to suffer and die. We're going to get back at the very end of our passage to some to the theological significance of the sufferings of Jesus Christ, but for right now notice very simply that this path to glory that Jesus walked and which he leads his church on is a path that was for Jesus, a path of suffering. Friends, though we don't suffer in the same way that Jesus suffered, if you're a Christian our Lord Jesus Christ has already fully drunk the cup of God's wrath for you and for your salvation. He already suffered for your sins. Thanks be to God that he did that because that's something that we could never do for ourselves. Nonetheless we are called as we follow the pioneer and leader of our salvation on this path to glory. We are called to, like Jesus, suffer as well. After all, how true is it that for believers throughout the world, in every time and in every place, that this pathway to glory is also a pathway that's dotted with landmines of temptation and suffering and rejection from this world. It's a pathway on which the world presses in on us. A pathway where we hear so often the lies of Satan, the lies of the devil, that are thrown on us. A path too, where we often trip and stumble and fall over our own sin nature. Yet as we suffer on this path to glory, and we will suffer, we do so with the knowledge that the one who leads us into glory, our leader and pioneer, can also relate with us because he himself suffered too. I like how John Calvin puts it, he writes, “Therefore whenever any evil passes over us, let it ever occur to us that nothing happens to us but what the Son of God has himself experienced.” The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Lead Us Out of Slavery So, Jesus Christ our Lord became man to lead us faithfully on the road of suffering and ultimately into glory. As our author continues, we learn of another purpose to Jesus's incarnation too. That is the son became one with our humanity to lead us out of slavery. So, look with me if you would at verses 14 through 16. This is what the part of the text we're going to home in on for this second point. Here we read this, 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Hebrews 2:14-16, ESV So, in this next part of our passage our author begins by pointing out something very basic to human experience and that is the reality of death. Death is a reality that confronts each and every one of us. The reality of death in and of itself is a frightening thing, but you don't have to be religious to know that either. I bet if we would ask virtually anyone on the street, that they would likely admit when their guard is down that death has power over everything and everyone. Death, at least apart from Jesus Christ, is a truly terrifying thing to experience and yet so much in our lives and in our world, it seems is set up with a goal of softening this cold and dark reality. Sometimes we tend to and people in our world tend to soften the language of death by talking about passing away. Or we maybe instead buy obsessively into every wellness trend that comes onto the scene with the goal of giving us even the slightest advantage over the inevitability of death. Even the most non-religious of our neighbors tend to use language, when their guard is down, that assumes something about a joyful life after death. In all of these ways our world tends to tame or domesticate the horrible reality of death. Yet according to our passage death in and of itself, apart from Jesus Christ, is something that should rightly be feared because in the words of Richard Philips, “Death is not merely an event that awaits us, but a power that rules us.” Now notice in our passage that death isn't described as a peaceful transition out of this world and into another. Rather it's pictured as an enslaving force of evil to which every man and woman is subject, and it's presided over by none other than Satan himself. Satan, who was responsible as the means of bringing sin and death into the world in the first place, who's described in the scriptures as the ruler of this world and the god of this world, is here envisioned as one who rules as a tyrant and who has as the scepter of his reign death. Death is a power that all of us are powerless in this world to do anything about. It's a power that the medical world cannot ultimately cure and a reality that all of us will one day meet. Here's the important gospel, but death is also a power that Jesus Christ ultimately rendered powerless when he came into this world, was united with our humanity, suffered, and died. Though Jesus died and though he went down to the grave, the good news of the gospel is that it was not possible for him to be held by death. After all how could the one who knew no sin ultimately be held by the penalty for sin? He couldn't and more than that, in dying and then rising from the grave Jesus released his people, children of Abraham, you and me, through faith in Christ from the enslaving power of death too. Throughout the New Testament we learn that through Jesus Christ's death and through his resurrection he dealt not only with death but also with the power behind death, Satan himself. He did this by binding the strong man, by plundering his house, and thereby delivering us from this fearful and dreadful power. Now brothers and sisters, it's most certainly true that death awaits all of us unless Jesus comes back before we die. All of us are going to succumb to death. You will die, but because death had no lasting power over Jesus, so too death will ultimately have no lasting power over us. The promise stands that in Christ Jesus we have great hope in this life and in the next. We have hope that the worship in which we're engaged in here and now on earth will one day for us, through Jesus Christ, give way to a ceaseless worship assembly in the heavenly places. We have hope that death in this moral body will one day give way to seen by sight what we only hear see by faith. We have hope that the sin that so easily entangles us here on earth, even as redeemed children of Abraham, will one day give way to a sinless eternity. Yes, we will die, but in Christ and in Christ alone, brothers and sisters, we have nothing to fear in death. More than that we have the assurance in the promise of the gospel that though we die, we will one day be resurrected like Jesus Christ. Jacob's been preaching so eloquently about this in 1 Corinthians 15 recently. Let me exhort you now that if you're not looking to Christ for your salvation, as he's freely offered in the gospel, know that death really is a most fearful end. Then death won't bring you any peace, won't bring you any rest. Instead, the evil of death will bring you into an eternal and everlasting intimate and ceaseless knowledge of the wrath of God. So, brothers and sisters, turn to the only one who's able, who's powerful enough to deliver us from that most fearful prospect, Jesus Christ our Lord. He who defeated death and who's rendered Satan powerless. The Son Became One with Our Humanity to Deal with our Sin Now that we learned that Jesus Christ became one with our humanity for the purpose of leading us out of the slavery of death and of fear of death. In the final two verses of our passage, we learn that in dealing with the problem of death through his incarnation, Jesus also dealt with the most fundamental problem of all, the problem that underlies even death itself, and that is sin. So, our third point is the Son became one with our humanity to deal with our sin. Now let me read for us, just to refocus us on where we are in the text, verses 17 through 18. This is where the focus of our final point is and let me read for us what we find there. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18, ESV So now from this point forward in Hebrews we're actually going to hear a lot quite a bit about Jesus's high priestly ministry. The idea is that Jesus is our merciful and faithful high priest that we see read in this text is actually one of the most dominant themes in the book of Hebrews. Before we go there, and even before we understand what that means specifically in our passage for Jesus to be the merciful and faithful high priest, we have to understand a little bit about the Old Testament background of what it means to be a priest in the first place. Now understand that in Old Testament Israel to be a priest was to occupy one of the three major roles or offices in Israel. The three offices were prophet, priest, and king. Throughout the New Testament what we find over and over again is that Jesus Christ is portrayed as the perfect representative, the perfect embodiment, of all three of those offices. He's the perfect king who rules and defends his church. That's what a king did, rules then defends his people. He's the perfect prophet who reveals to the church the will of God. A prophet was somebody who speaks on behalf of God to the people, that's what Jesus does. The perfect priest who serves as our representative before God, that's what a priest in the Old Testament did. They represented the people in their sin before God, offering a diversity of sacrifices on behalf of the nation all in order to appease the wrath of God. More specifically the high priest, which is how Jesus is labeled in our passage and elsewhere in Hebrews, was the one individual in Israel and the only individual in Israel who had the unique honor the special priestly role of serving once a year in the Most Holy Place. The Holy of Holies, was this center room in the tabernacle and later in the temple, where God's presence on earth was most powerfully made manifest. The book of Hebrews is concerned throughout the book with filling out what it means for us that Jesus is not just a priest, but rather that he's the final merciful and faithful high priest who entered into the holy place, the Most Holy Place, of the heavenly temple and by virtue of his own blood brings you and me to God. So, with this background in mind, we learn in our passage again that Jesus is described as our perfect merciful and faithful high priest who represents us, the church, before God. He represents us by the full obedience of his life and being perfectly obedient to God's law in his humiliation, when we've perfectly failed to be obedient to God's law. The focus of our passage centers instead on how Jesus, as our high priest, also represented us in his death by making, as our text says, propitiation for our sins. So, what does the author mean when he says that Jesus makes propitiation for our sins? Well let me explain that by offering a little bit of background to fill out what our author is getting at here. Now I already mentioned that in the in the heart of the Old Testament temple and sacrificial system, there was a room in the temple called the Most Holy Place or it's described elsewhere as the Holy of Holies. It was this center room where only the high priest could enter into once a year. In that Most Holy Place there was some stuff in it. In fact, there was something significant, something called the Ark of the Covenant that lay in the Most Holy Place. This Ark of the Covenant was a big adorned rectangular box that symbolically represented God's throne, or his footstool, on earth. Moreover, within this Ark of the Covenant, if you would open it up, well you would find in it the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. The lid on the Ark of the Covenant, the thing that sealed all of this in place, was something called the Mercy Seat. In the book of Exodus, we learn that it was in the Holy of Holies, and specifically above the Ark of the Covenant and above the Mercy Seat, where God would symbolically meet with his people. Here's the problem, if God were to come down and meet with his people on the basis of the law which lay at his feet, well his righteous wrath would be incited against his people. After all a holy God cannot come and dwell among his people, being reminded that they are nothing but sin breakers. So, when the high priest entered into the Most Holy Place once a year in the Old Testament sacrificial system, well he was tasked with sprinkling blood on the mercy seat so that God, when he came down to meet with his people and looked and saw the law, wouldn't see and be reminded how his people were lawbreakers. Instead, he would see the blood, he would see a sacrifice that atoned for his people as law breakers. Then his wrath against his people would be satisfied. Why is all this significant? Why do I tell you all of this stuff? Because the word for Mercy Seat in the Old Testament is the same word for propitiation. So, when our author tells us in Hebrews that Christ Jesus made propitiation for our sins, he's drawing upon language from the temple to communicate that Christ Jesus is the ultimate mercy seat, if you will. He who covered over our law breaking with his own blood, not the blood of bulls and goats, so that God's wrath rather than being poured out upon sinners and law breakers, which is what we are, and what justice demands, would instead be poured out upon Jesus himself. Understand that God's justice has to be satisfied. Because Jesus made propitiation for our sins, God's wrath, which is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, was poured out on the one who knew no sin, but for us and for our salvation became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. For Jesus to make propitiation for our sins means that he suffered in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we might have access to God. This is what Paul tells us in Romans 3 as well where we read, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. Romans 3:23-25b, ESV So, friends, Christ is the propitiation, the one who deals with our sin problem by taking the guilt of our sin upon himself and the inevitable wrath of God that follows. I know this truth rings out loudly in the scriptures as a profound theological reality for us to embrace. A theological reality that's fundamental to all of our hopes both in this life and the next. It also carries with it something profoundly practical as well because at the same time Jesus makes propitiation for our sins as the great high priestly representative on our behalf, he's also described as the merciful and faithful high priest who in his life as a servant was tempted in every way that we are yet never sinned and is therefore able to help us in our lives as servants of God when we're tempted. Now I'm sure for all of us when we when somebody offers us advice, whether that be career advice or marriage advice, parenting advice, so on and so forth, that advice means far more when it comes from someone who knows what we're going through because they experienced it themselves. When we receive advice like that we tend to listen far more intently, and we tend to give that advice far more credibility than we would if somebody were to come from an experience that doesn't represent ours. Now as creator of the whole world, the one through whom the world was created, the Son wouldn't have had to go through everything we've gone through in order to speak with authority and wisdom and power into our own experiences. Calvin makes that point too. To know that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, faced in this world the same temptations that we face in this sinful world. To know that he knew human weakness as we know human weakness, well all that persuades us that this is a God who is able to sympathize with us and a God who's able to help us. In our lives when we're constantly pressed in by sin and temptation, he's also willing and ready to help us with our struggle against sin in this sinful world. All that remains is for us, as the people of God, to regularly seek Jesus Christ in the place where he offers himself to us, namely in his word and sacrament and prayer and to trust that in the means he supplies to us that he also meets with us in them as our great high priest. Jesus Christ delivers us from sin and as our merciful and faithful high priest who's compassionate towards us. He's also willing to help us in our ongoing battle with sin and temptation too. Application So, let me offer us some application as we prepare to conclude and to close. I have one thing for us to meditate over, one thing to think upon today. That's this, do not be ashamed to call upon Jesus Christ for help. The blunt reality is that our sin is inherently shameful. When we sin and fall short of the glory of God, if we're in Christ, we're probably quite ashamed of our sin. After all our sin is responsible for conflict in our relationships. Our sin gets in the way of loving other people the way that the Lord in his word calls us to. Ultimately our sin is an affront it's an offense to a holy God who's also grieved whenever we turn aside from his revealed will to chart our own course. When we feel the shame over our sin which we inevitably will, well there's one of two ways that we usually typically respond to that. On the one hand sometimes, we tend to minimize the shame of our sin by grading our sin in comparison with others; well, I may have done this but at least I didn't do that. Or we may minimize our sin by quickly deflecting blame elsewhere; I'm only angry because they made me angry. Or at the furthest extreme we me we may even minimize our sin and the shame that we feel in it by pretending that our vices are actually virtues and then labeling the shame we feel as an unwarranted cultural conditioned response that we shouldn't feel in the first place. In all of these ways we minimize our sin by pretending that it's really not as bad as it is. On the other hand, sometimes when we feel the shame of our sin, we really feel the shame for our sin. Sometimes that shame drives us to virtually depression or other times it stirs within us the impulse to try to atone for our sin as if we could ever do that. In our passage we're offered a third way to deal with that shame. That is, we call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ for help. Though we sin and we fall short of the glory of God and though our sin is debasing and shameful, inherently we're also provided rich words of grace in our passage, when the author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ our Lord is not ashamed to call us brothers. As Calvin says, “this is a great honor that's bestowed upon us”. It's also a bomb to our souls. When we hear that despite the shame of our sin that weighs so heavy upon us, that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is not ashamed to call us his brothers. In that he's also our brother who's able to help us and who's willing to help us in our own ongoing battle with sin. So, let me exhort you that if you're not a Christian, first be honest about your sin. Don't minimize or downplay or deflect from it. Hear the word of God and own your sin for what it is. Then turn to Jesus Christ our Lord who would adopt you as his son and as his brother by faith alone. If you are a Christian, the promise that Jesus will help is also a promise for you. When you experience sin and temptation in this world and you're stung, as we all are, on this path to glory this path that the Spirit of God will ultimately keep us on, and we're stung with the weight of our sin. The promise here, the exhortation is to turn to Jesus for help. To know that he experienced all that the world threw at him in his humiliation in the flesh ministry. He endured and therefore he's willing and ready to help you even now. All we need to do, friends, is to call upon him as our brother and more than that, as our Lord. Let me pray. Almighty God, Heavenly Father, Lord we thank you that in your wisdom you saved us by sending your Son low in his humiliation to identify with us, to relate with us in in our humanity. Then ultimately to save us by leading us out of sin and captivity and death into glory. The glorious reality of being in your presence. We pray that you would help bring these things to our memory both today and this week as we continue to grow in a knowledge of Jesus Christ. Also, that we would regularly take up the invitation to call upon Jesus Christ for help when we need help, as we often do, as we always do when we feel the weight of our sin and we're stung by our sin nature on this path to glory. We pray that you would help us and that we would take up that invitation to turn to you often for the help that you promised to provide. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen.

Knowing who Jesus is allows us to be reassured of our salvation. Jesus is both true God and true man, in a mysterious way that cannot be fully understood. "Bad words" about Jesus result in heresy and are destructive to your faith. Be sure to subscribe to this podcast and give us a great review on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts!   Email us: ForYouRadio@1517.org www.1517.org/foryou St. James Lutheran Church www.stjameslcms.church St. Peter's Lutheran Church  www.Stpeterslc.org  We're proud to be a podcast of 1517.org podcasts.  

21 July 2019 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time Luke 10:38-42 + Brief Remarks 6 Minutes 40 Seconds Link to the Readings http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/072119.cfm (New American Bible, Revised Edition) From the parish bulletin:   If there is no objective truth, there are no heresies. For the lazy thinker, the mellow refrain suffices: “It’s all good.” The etymology of “heresy” is complicated, but it has come to mean a wrong choice. Yet, if the mere act of choosing justifies itself (as when people declare themselves “Pro-Choice”), then no choice is wrong. But we live in a real world, and so everything cannot be right. Thus, we have a new religion called political correctness, and anyone who is politically incorrect is accused of being “phobic” one way or another. Suddenly what claims to be liberal is decidedly illiberal, and what is called “free speech” is anything but free.     This confusion is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of creation itself. The world follows an order; otherwise all would be chaos. As God has revealed himself as its Creator, there are truths about the world that cannot be denied without illogical anarchy. Every heresy is an exaggeration of a truth. For instance, Arianism teaches the humanity of Christ to the neglect of his divinity, and Apollinarianism does the opposite. The long list of heresies with complicated names illustrates how many deep thinkers made mistakes by relying only on their own limited powers of deduction. The two most destructive heresies were Gnosticism and Calvinism, which totally misunderstood creation and the human condition. Thus, we have the romantic fantasizing of Teilhard de Chardin and the sociopathic astringency of John Calvin.     In the first chapter of his letter to the Colossians, Saint Paul sets the orthodox template by raising his glorious theology to an effervescent canticle praising the mystery of Christ “who is the image of the unseen God and the first born of all creation.” This hymnody animates the Office of Vespers in the weeks of each month: “. . . for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth . . .”    By natural intelligence, we would know God as the Designer of the universal order (Romans 1:19-20), but only by God’s revelation can we know the existence of Christ transcending time and space. By Christ’s enfleshment and the shedding of his blood on the Cross, as Saint John Paul II said, quoting Colossians, “the face of the Father, Creator of the universe becomes accessible in Christ, author of created reality: ‘all things were created through him . . . in him all things hold together.'” So Christ cannot be understood as just another wise man in the mold of Confucius or Solomon. As Saint Cyril of Alexandria proclaimed: “We do not say that a simple man, full of honors, I know not how, by his union with Him was sacrificed for us, but it is the very Lord of glory who was crucified.”     Without recrimination or censoriousness, but just looking around at the disastrous state of contemporary culture, logic can conclude that, if all things hold together in Christ, without Christ all things fall apart.

Superheroes Can't Save You-Part 6

Superheroes Can't Save You-Part 6

Years ago a man named Apollinaris sought to protect the teaching of the divinity of Christ, but in so doing, actually created a heresy that stripped away portions of Christ's essence, causing more confusion and danger as the error was espoused. While there may not be any self-proclaimed Apollinarians today, the fact remains that portions of this heresy still seep into churches. Discovering this teaching in your church could cause you to get angry...and as we know "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

In this session, we see two heresies arise because an over-emphasis on only certain theolicial details - Apollinarianism and Nestorianism.

Was Jesus Christ merely a body controlled by the Son of God? In this second of a two-part episode, the crew discusses Apollinaris and Apollinarianism.

Was Jesus Christ merely a body controlled by the Son of God? In this first of a two-part episode, the crew discusses Apollinaris and Apollinarianism.

Apollinarianism is a very long name for an early Christian heresy. In this episode of 5 Minutes in Church History, Dr. Stephen Nichols explains what it is and how the early church dealt with it.

Sin dehumanized you.

Sin dehumanized you.

[2009 Church History] 10. Apollinarianism & Nestorianism - Junius Johnson

This is part 5 of our series on the Creeds in which we'll be taking a look at the First Council of Constantinople.In Part 3 we looked at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. While the Church had a lot to deal with in the decades that followed, they didn't convene another Council for almost 60 yrs.And before we dive into that Second Council, we need to back up a bit because it can get confusing keeping track of all these councils and how they relate to the Creeds.Both the Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Church recognize what's called the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. Don't be confused by that word “Ecumenical.” Today, the word carries the connotation of bringing together disparate groups. But as it's applied to these Councils, Ecumenical meant that church leaders from every region and branch of the Faith were invited and a part. There were other councils that took place after the 7th, but it's only these both the Western & Eastern churches recognize as legit.It ought to be noted that the Oriental Orthodox church only accepts the first three councils, while the Nestorian Church of the East only accepts the first two.And to complicate matters just a bit more, there was a council between the 6th & 7th called the Quinisext Council that the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts as legit while Rome does not. The reason this Council isn't given an ordinal number like the rest is because it didn't deal with any issues of theology. It dealt with more liturgical & organizational issues not resolved at the 6th Council, so  was considered to be an extension of that Council.While Rome ignores the Quinisext Council & the Eastern Orthodox Church only recognizes the first 7, Rome embraces later councils the Eastern Church does not.Alright, with that out of the way, let's turn now to the Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople.As you'll remember from a couple episodes ago, the Council of Nicaea in 325 addressed the challenge of Arianism and the identity of Christ. They settled on the wording for their Creed, that Jesus was “very God of very God.” Contrary to what the heretic Arius taught, Christ wasn't a created being God then used to create everything.Certain modern authors & New Age spiritualists would have us believe the Emperor Constantine manipulated the Council to this end for some sinister political ambition, then by royal fiat waved his scepter and Christianized the empire, enforcing his decree with the sword and made Arian believers conform. But as we saw, that's just not the case; not by a mile! The fact is, the problem of Arianism remained, with over the next decades Roman emperors favoring a form of Arianism. It was they who persecuted Nicaean Christians, not the other way around.When 80 priests petitioned Emperor Valens, a rabid Arian supporter,  to reconsider an appointment he'd made that was highly a controversial, he rounded them up, put them in a boat, launched it from the shore and then had burning arrows shot into it so that they all burned to death.Yeah, so that whole “Constantine MADE Christianity the only acceptable religion” line so many love to repeat, just doesn't hold up.By 381, while orthodox Nicaean Christians didn't face the same kind of persecution they had under some of the emperors before Constantine, they were still caught up in a struggle for their faith; this time with people who claimed their Arianism was the truth Faith; “and we've got the Emperor on our side.”We might think the Nicaean Council & Creed dealt the death blow to Arianism. It didn't because Arians finagled a way to conform to Nicaea without giving away their key ideas.Arius had taught that Christ was a created being.  Some Arians, called Semi-Arians, claimed Christ was like God. They appealed to some old language the church had used to answer the objections of those who said there was no difference between the Father & the Son. That was answered by saying Christ is “like God,” meaning the Father. He's LIKE the Father, but Isn't the Father; they're two persons.That language, which had been accepted by earlier Christians, was picked up by the Semi-Arians, who'd become the new standard bearers for Arianism. They said, “Look, we're only saying what earlier Christians said.” You can't condemn us without condemning them too.” But of course, they applied the phrase “like God” to a completely different application. They weren't saying the same thing as those earlier Christians.At first, the orthodox Nicaean Church Leaders showed the Semi-Arians grace & accepted them as orthodox believers. But it didn't take long before the true colors of the Arians came out. What outed them was their position on the Holy Spirit.Nicaea hadn't said much about the Spirit; only that the Orthodox believe in Him as a member of the Trinity. But the super precise verbiage that had marked their identification of Christ was absent.  Arians on the other hand, clinging tenaciously to a single person as God, said the Holy Spirit was merely an impersonal force & spiritual influence. The orthodox understood the Biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person, co-equal with the Father & Son. They regarded the Holy Spirit as Third Person of the Trinity. So, another council was called after the death of the Arian Emperor Valens to settle the issue.To be fair, let's give the Arians some ground to stand on to present their case for why the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as a force rather than divine person.Joel 2:28, quoted in Acts 2 has God promising: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people.” How can a person be poured out?In Psa 51, David asked God to not take the Holy Spirit from him. That seems to say the Spirit is something that God uses rather than a person who acts. In the NT, the Spirit sometimes seems to be described as a state of being; like when the disciples are filled with the Spirit & the Spirit can be quenched. The Arians maintained that if such passages referred to a person, it was unlike any other person we've encountered, to the point where what it means to BE a person has to be altered.The Arians then looked outside of Scripture to the way the Holy Spirit was spoken of in some Church traditions and rituals. Often times the wording of such applied better to a power or force than a person.For example, a 3rd C liturgy spoke of the church as a “place where the Spirit abounds.” That kind of language was just never used for the Father & Son.Another reason the Arians managed to get away with all this for a while is because, to be frank, the Church didn't possess a full-orbed, well rounded and thoroughly Biblical theology for the Holy Spirit yet. It was this controversy that helped develop it.That came when orthodox Church leaders went to Scripture to see what it taught about the Holy Spirit. While there were verses that could be understood as referring to an impersonal Spirit, Gregory of Nazianzus found many more passages cast the Spirit is Personal terms that could NOT be connected to a mere force or power. A greater thing can do a lesser, but a lesser thing cannot do a greater. A person can do something a mere power or force can do. But a mere force cannot do what only a person can.So the Bible said the Holy Spirit can be grieved, lied to, can speak, consoles.And if the Arians wanted to appeal to long-standing church rituals as back up for their position, what about the fact that since the beginning, new believers were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?During the discussion of the First Council of Constantinople, orthodox Church Leaders were concerned the Arian doctrine of the Spirit undercut God's promise to personally dwell in and with His people. He didn't send a force, He came Himself in the Person of the Spirit. The Christian Life isn't merely one that's given some extra juice by the impartation at baptism of  a dose of spiritual energy, as Arians claimed. The Christian Life is nothing less than, as Paul said in Gal 2:20, Christ himself living IN and through us by the person and presence of the Holy Spirit.When it was clear to Church Leaders Arianism had resurged and threatened to once again co-opt the faith, they convened a Council in early 381. They asked Emperor Theodosius to send out official invitations, summoning church leaders. Though Western Church leader did NOT attend the Council, they accepted it's conclusions as though they'd been present and participated in ratifying its conclusions. The Emperor recused himself from any part in the Council and left it to the bishops to settle the matter among themselves.Meletius of Antioch was selected to preside at the Council, but died shortly after it was called. Gregory of Nazianzus, the recently installed Patriarch of Constantinople took his place. Gregory, as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, was a scholar's scholar. He was also a committed Orthodox Nicaean. Because Arianism prevailed in the East for decades before Theodosius's rule, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had been filled by Arians. Gregory was something utterly new.He was also exhausted by the time the Council began. Finding himself suddenly thrust in the role of presiding over it, he regarded the political squabbling over appointing a replacement for Meletius at the important bishopric of Antioch too much & resigned. Theodosius was loath to grant him his request, but was persuaded by Gregory's impassioned appeal and released him. The Council was then lead by Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official.Unlike some later Councils, this one was mostly free of political pressure and focused on theological issues, both sides being well represented. The decision of the Council favored the position of the orthodox which had been carefully crafted by Gregory of Nazianzus. Instead of coming up with a new Creed, the Nicene Creed was clarified and expanded to say, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”Now: Put a little mental footnote in here because we'll come back to this in a later episode. The Western church added a few more words to this later. That addition was never accepted by the East and became a major point of contention that goes on to this day.This Constantinoplian-revised Nicaean Creed left not a millimeter's worth of wiggle room for Arians. The Holy Spirit was now clearly identified as a divine person who fulfills a role that God reserved for Himself. He's the Giver of Life, both physical and spiritual, intimately connected with the Father and not a separate deity, who deserves to be the object of worship, and who's been active in the process of salvation throughout history.This Council put the last theological nail in Arianism's coffin. It was now officially banned.Updating the Nicaean Creed wasn't all the Council did. They also condemned as heresy the doctrine of Apollinarianism, which denied the dual nature of Christ, attributing only a divine nature to Him.The Council also granted the Imperial Church at Constantinople an honorary primacy over all other churches, except Rome. Coming as the 3rd Canon, or ruling of the Council it reads, “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.”Remember, Western bishops weren't present at Constantinople. This canon was a first step in the rising importance of the just 50 year old new capital. What's remarkable is that by elevating Constantinople, it demoted older churches that figured far more centrally in the early history of Christianity. What about Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria? In fact, that was the push back that Rome gave. While the Roman Church would go on later and use this canon to assert its supremacy over other churches, they protested the diminished statues of the other traditional church centers.

The title of this episode is, “Can't We All Just Get Along?”In our last episode, we began our look at how the Church of the 4th & 5th Cs attempted to describe the Incarnation. Once the Council of Nicaea affirmed Jesus' deity, along with His humanity, Church leaders were left with the task of finding just the right words to describe WHO Jesus was. If He was both God & Man as The Nicaean Creed said, how did these two natures relate to one another?We looked at how the churches at Alexandria & Antioch differed in their approaches to understanding & teaching the Bible. Though Alexandria was recognized as a center of scholarship, the church at Antioch kept producing church leaders who were drafted to fill the role of lead bishop at Constantinople, the political center of the Eastern Empire. While Rome was the undisputed lead church in the West, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople vied with each other over who would take the lead in the East. But the real contest was between Alexandria in Egypt & Antioch in Syria.The contest between the two cities & their churches became clear during the time of John Chrysostom from Antioch & Theophilus, lead bishop at Alexandria. Because of John's reputation as a premier preacher, he was drafted to become Bishop at Constantinople. But John's criticisms of the decadence of the wealthy, along with his refusal to tone down his chastisement of the Empress, caused him to fall out of favor. I guess you can be a great preacher, just so long as you don't turn your skill against people in power. Theophilus was jealous of Chrysostom's promotion from Antioch to the capital and used the political disfavor growing against him to call a synod at which John was disposed from office as Patriarch of Constantinople.That was like Round 1 of the sparring match between Alexandria and Antioch. Round 2 and the deciding round came next in the contest between 2 men; Cyril & Nestorius.Cyril was Theophilus' nephew & attended his uncle at the Synod of the Oak at which Chrysostom was condemned. Cyril learned his lessons well and applied them with even greater ferocity in taking down his opponent, Nestorius.Before we move on with these 2, I need to back-track some & bore the bejeebers out of you for a bit.Warning: Long, hard to pronounce, utterly forgettable word Alert.Remember è The big theological issue at the forefront of everyone's mind during this time was how to understand Jesus.Okay, we got it: àThe Nicaean Creed's been accepted as basic Christian doctrine.The Cappadocian Fathers have given us the right formula for understanding the Trinity.There's 1 God in 3 persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.Now, on to the next thing: Jesus is God and Man. How does that work? Is He 2 persons or 1? Does He have 1 nature or 2? And if 2, how do those natures relate to one another?A couple ideas were floated to resolve the issue but came up short; Apollinarianism and Eutychianism.Apollinaris of Laodicea lived in the 4th C.  A defender of the Nicene Creed, he said in Jesus the divine Logos replaced His human soul. Jesus had a human body in which dwelled a divine spirit. Our longtime friend Athanasius led the synod of Alexandria in 362 to condemn this view but didn't specifically name Apollinaris. 20 Yrs later, the Council of Constantinople did just that. Gregory of Nazianzus supplied the decisive argument against Apollinarianism saying, “What was not assumed was not healed” meaning, for the entire of body, soul, and spirit of a person to be saved, Jesus Christ must have taken on a complete human nature.Eutyches was a, how to describe him; elderly-elder, a senior leader, an aged-monk in Constantinople who advocated one nature for Jesus. Eutychianism said that while in the Incarnation Jesus was both God & man, His divine nature totally overwhelmed his human nature, like a drop of vinegar is lost in the sea.Those who maintained the dual-nature of Jesus as wholly God and wholly Man are called dyophysites.  Those advocating a single-nature are called Monophysites.What happened between Cyril & Nestorius is this . . .Nestorius was an elder and head of a monastery in Antioch when the emperor Theodosius II chose him to be Bishop of Constantinople in 428.Now, what I'm about to say some will find hard to swallow, but while Nestorius's name became associated with one of the major heresies to split the church, the error he's accused of he most likely wasn't guilty of. What Nestorius was guilty of was being a jerk. His story is typical for several of the men who were picked to lead the church at Constantinople during the 4th through 7th Cs; effective preachers but lousy administrators & seriously lacking in people skills. Look, if you're going to be pegged to lead the Church at the Political center of the Empire, you better be a savvy political operator, as well as a man of moral & ethical excellence. A heavy dose of tact ought to have been a pre-requisite. But guys kept getting selected who came to the Capital on a campaign to clean house. And many of them seem to have thought subtlety was the devil's tool.As soon as Nestorius arrived in Constantinople, he started a harsh campaign against heretics, meaning anyone with whom he disagreed. It wouldn't take long before his enemies accused him of the very thing he accused others of. But in their case, their accusations were born of jealousy.Where they deiced to take offense was when Nestorius balked at the use of the word Theotokos. The word means God-bearer, and was used by the church at Alexandria for the mother of Jesus. While the Alexandrians said they rejected Apollinarianism, they, in fact, emphasized the divine nature of Jesus, saying it overwhelmed His human nature. The Alexandrian bishop, Cyril, was once again jealous of the Antiochan Nestorius' selection as bishop for the Capital. As his uncle Theophilus had taken advantage of Chrysostom's disfavor to get him deposed, Cyril laid plans for removing the tactless & increasingly unpopular Nestorius. The battle over the word Theotokos became the flashpoint of controversy, the crack Cyril needed to pry Nestorius from his position.To supporters of the Alexandrian theology, Theotokos seemed entirely appropriate for Mary. They said she DID bear God when Jesus took flesh in her womb. And to deny it was to deny the deity of Christ!Nestorius and his many supporters were concerned the title “Theotokos” made Mary a goddess. Nestorius maintained that Mary was the mother of the man Who was united with the divine Logos, and nothing should be said that might imply she was the “Mother à of God.” Nestorius preferred the title Christokos; Mary was the Christ-bearer. But he lacked a vocabulary and the theological sophistication to relate the divine and human natures of Jesus in a convincing way.Cyril, on the other hand, argued convincingly for his position from the Scriptures. In 429, Cyril defended the term Theotokos. His key text was John 1: 14, “The Word became flesh.” I'd love to launch into a detailed description of the nuanced debate between Cyril and Nestorius over the nature of Christ but it would leave most, including myself, no more clued in than we are now.Suffice it to say, Nestorius maintained the dual-nature-in-the-one-person of Christ while Cyril stuck to the traditional Alexandrian line and said while Jesus was technically 2 natures, human & divine, the divine overwhelmed the human so that He effectively operated as God in a physical body.Where this came down to a heated debate was over the question of whether or not Jesus really suffered in His passion. Nestorius said that the MAN Jesus suffered but not His divine nature, while Cyril said the divine nature did indeed suffer.When the Roman Bishop Celestine learned of the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, he selected a churchman named John Cassian to respond to Nestorius. He did so in his work titled On the Incarnation in 430. Cassian sided with Cyril but wanted to bring Nestorius back into harmony. Setting aside Cassian's hope to bring Nestorius into his conception of orthodoxy, Celestine entered a union with Cyril against Nestorius and the church at Antioch he'd come from. A synod at Rome in 430 condemned Nestorius, and Celestine asked Cyril to conduct proceedings against him.Cyril condemned Nestorius at a Synod in Alexandria and sent him a notice with a cover letter listing 12 anathemas against Nestorius and anyone else who disagreed with the Alexandrian position. For example à “If anyone does not confess Emmanuel to be very God, and does not acknowledge the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”Receiving the letter from Cyril, Nestorius humbly resigned and left for a quiet retirement at Leisure Village in Illyrium. à Uh, not quite. True to form, Nestorius ignored the Synod's verdict.Emperor Theodosius II called a general council to meet at Ephesus in 431. This Council is sometimes called the Robber's Synod because it turned into a bloody romp by Cyril's supporters. As the bishops gathered in Ephesus, it quickly became evident the Council was far more concerned with politics than theology. This wasn't going to be a sedate debate over texts, words & grammar. It was going to be a physical contest. Let's settle doctrinal disputes with clubs instead of books.Cyril and his posse of club-wielding Egyptian monks, and I use the word posse purposefully, had the support of the Ephesian bishop, Memnon, along with the majority of the bishops from Asia. The council began on June 22, 431, with 153 bishops present. 40 more later gave their assent to the findings. Cyril presided. Nestorius was ordered to attend but knew it was a rigged affair and refused to show. He was deposed and excommunicated. Ephesus rejoiced.On June 26, John, bishop of Antioch, along with the Syrian bishops, all of whom had been delayed, finally arrived. John held a rival council consisting of 43 bishops and the Emperor's representative. They declared Cyril & Memnon deposed. Further sessions of rival councils added to the number of excommunications.A report reached Theodosius II, and representatives of both sides pled their case. Theodosius's first instinct was to confirm the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, & Nestorius. Be done with the lot of them. But a lavish gift from Cyril persuaded the Emperor to dissolve the Council and send Nestorius into exile. A new bishop for Constantinople was consecrated. Cyril returned in triumph to Alexandria.From a historical perspective, it's what happened AFTER the Council of Ephesus that was far more important. John of Antioch sent a representative to Alexandria with a compromise creed. This asserted the duality of natures, in contrast to Cyril's formulation, but accepted the Theotokos, in contrast to Nestorius. This compromise anticipated decisions to be reached at the next general church Council at Chalcedon.Cyril agreed to the creed and a reunion of the churches took place in 433. Since then, historians have asked if Cyril was being a statesman in agreeing to the compromise or did he just cynically accept it because he'd achieved his real purpose; getting rid of Nestorius. Either way, the real loser was Nestorius. Theodosius had his books burned, and many who agreed with Nestorius's theology dropped their support.Those who represented his theological emphases continued to carry on their work in eastern Syria, becoming what History calls the Church of the East, a movement of the Gospel we'll soon see that reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean.While in exile, Nestorius wrote a book that set forth the story of his life and defended his position. Modern reviews of Nestorius find him to be more of a schismatic in temperament than a heretic. He denied the heresy of which he was accused, that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were 2 different persons.20 yrs after the Council of Ephesus, which many regarded as a grave mistake, another was called at Chalcedon. Nestorius' teaching was declared heretical and he was officially deposed. Though already in exile, he was now banished by an act of the Church rather than Emperor. In one of those odd facts of history, though what Nestorius taught about Christ was declaimed, it turned out to be the position adopted by the Creed that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. When word reached Nestorius in exile of the Council's finding he said they'd only ratified what he'd always believed & taught.There's much to learn from this story of conflict and resolution.First, many of the doctrines we take for granted as being part and parcel of the orthodox Christian faith, came about through great struggle and debate of some of the most brilliant minds history's known. Sometimes, those ideas were popular and ruled because they were expedient. But mere politics can't sustain a false idea. There are always faithful men and women who love truth because it's true, not because it will gain them power, influence or advantage. They may suffer at the hands of the corrupt for a season, but they always prevail in the end.We ought to be thankful, not only to God for giving us the truth in His Word and the Spirit to understand it, but also to the people who at great cost were willing to hazard themselves to make sure Truth prevailed over error.Second, Too often, people look back on the “Early Church” and assume it was a wonderful time of sweet harmony. Life was simple, everyone agreed and no one ever argued. Hardly!Good grief. Have they read the Bible? The disciples were forever arguing over who was greatest. Paul & Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark. Paul had to get in Peter's face when he played the hypocrite.Yes, for sure, in Acts we read about a brief period of time when the love of the fellowship was so outstanding it shook the people of Jerusalem to the core and resulted in many coming to faith. But that was only a brief moment that soon passed.God wants His people to be in unity. True unity, under the truth of the Gospel, is an incredibly powerful proof of our Faith. But the idea that the Early Church was a Golden Age of Unity is a fiction. Philip Jenkins' book on the battle over the Christology of the 4th & 5th Cs. is titled Jesus Wars.The Church as a whole would be better served today in its pursuit of unity if each local congregation focused its primary efforts on loving and serving one another through the power of the Spirit. It's inevitable if they excelled at that, they'd begin looking at all churches and believers in the same way, and unity would be real rather than a program with a start & end date or a campaign based on personalities and hype.Hey - come to think of it, that's what DID bring about that short glorious moment of blissful harmony in Jerusalem among the followers of Jesus – they loved and served one another in the power of the Spirit.

This episode is titled, “Jerome.”By his mid-30's, Jerome was probably the greatest Christian scholar of his time. He's one of the greatest figures in the history of Bible translation, spending 3 decades producing a Latin version that would be the standard for a thousand years. But Jerome was no bookish egghead. He longed for the hermetic life we considered in the previous episode & often exhibited a sour disposition that showered his opponents with biting sarcasm and brutal invective.His given name was Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius and was born in 345 to wealthy Christian parents either in Aquileia in NE Italy or across the Adriatic in Dalmatia.At about 15, Jerome and a friend went to Rome to study Rhetoric & Philosophy. He engaged with abandon many of the immoral escapades of his fellow students, then followed up these debaucheries with intense self-loathing. To appease his conscience, he visited the graves & tombs of the martyrs and saints in Rome's extensive catacombs. Jerome later said the darkness & terror he found there seemed an appropriate warning for the hell he knew his soul was destined for.This tender conscience is interesting in light of his initial skepticism about Christianity. That skepticism began to thaw when he realized what he was experiencing was the conviction of the Holy Spirit. His mind could not hold out against his heart and he was eventually converted. At  19, he was baptized.He then moved to Trier in Gaul where he took up theological studies & began making copies of commentaries & doctrinal works for wealthy patrons.Jerome then returned to Aquileia, where he settled in to the church community and made many friends.Several of these accompanied him when he set out in 373 on a journey thru Thrace and Asia Minor to northern Syria. At Antioch, 2 of his companions died and he became seriously ill. During this illnesses, he had a vision that led him to lay aside his studies in the classics and devote himself to God. He plunged into a deep study of the Bible, under the guidance of a church leader at Antioch named Apollinaris. This Apollinaris was later labeled a heretic for his unorthodox views on Christ. He was one of several at this time trying to work out how to understand and express the nature of Jesus; was He God, Man or both? And if both, how are we to understand these two natures operating within the One, Jesus?  Apollinaris said Jesus had a human body & soul, but that his mind was divine. This view, creatively called Apollinarianism, was declared heretical at the Council of Constantinople in 381, though the church had pretty well dispensed with it as a viable view of Christ back in 362 at a Synod in Alexandria, presided over by our friend Athanasius.While in Antioch & as a fallout of his illness & the loss of his friends, Jerome was seized with a desire to live an ascetic life as a hermit. He retreated to the wilderness southwest of Antioch, already well-populated by fellow-hermits. Jerome spent his isolation in more study and writing. He began learning Hebrew under the tutelage of a converted Jew; and kept in correspondence with the Jewish Christians of Antioch. He obtained a copy of the Gospels in Hebrew, fragments of which are preserved in his notes. Jerome translated parts of this into Greek.Returning to Antioch in 379, he was ordained by Paulinus, whom you'll remember was the bishop of the Nicaean congregation there. This is the Bishop & church supported by Rome when the Arian church in Antioch was taken over a new also-Nicaean Bishop named Meletius. Instead of the 2 churches merging because the cause of their division was now removed, they became the political frontlines in the battle for supremacy between Rome & Constantinople.Recognizing Jerome's skill as a scholar, Bishop Paulinus rushed to ordain Jerome as a priest, but the monk would only accept it on the condition he'd never have to carry out priestly functions. Instead, Jerome plunged himself into his studies, especially in Scripture. He attended lectures, examined parchments, and interviewed teachers and theologians.He went to Constantinople to pursue a study of the Scriptures under Gregory of Nazianzus. He spent 2 years there, then was asked by Paulinus back in Antioch to accompany him to Rome so the whole issue over who the rightful bishop in Antioch was. Paulinus knew Jerome would make a mighty addition to his side. Indeed he did, and Pope Damasus I was so impressed with Jerome, he persuaded him to stay in Rome. For the next 3 years, Jerome became something of a celebrity at Rome. He took a prominent place in most of the pope's councils. At one point his influence over the pope was so great he had the audacity to say, “Damasus is my mouth.”He began a revision of the Latin Bible based on the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He also updated the Book of Psalms that prior to that time had been based on the Septuagint; a Greek translation of Hebrew.In Rome, he was surrounded by a circle of well-born and well-educated women, including some from the noblest patrician families. They were moved by Jerome's asceticism & began to emulate his example of worldly forbearance. This did NOT endear him to the rather secular clergy in Rome who enjoyed the attention of such lovely, rich and available women. But Jerome's messing with their fun didn't end there. He offended their pleasure-loving ways with his sharp tongue and blunt criticism. As one historian puts it, “He detested most of the Romans and did not apologize for detesting them.” He mocked the clerics' lack of charity, their ignorance & overweening vanity. The men of the time were inordinately fond of beards, so Jerome mused, “If there is any holiness in a beard, nobody is holier than a goat!”Soon after the death of his patron, Pope Damasus in December 384, Jerome was forced to leave Rome after an inquiry brought up allegations he'd had an improper relationship with a wealthy widow named Paula.This wasn't the only charge against him. More serious was the death of one of the young women who'd sought to follow his ascetic lifestyle, due to poor health caused by the rigors he demanded she follow. Everyone could see how her health declined for the 4 months she followed Jerome's lead. Most Romans were outraged for his causing the premature death of such a lively & lovely young woman, and at his insistence her mother ought not mourn her daughter's death. When he criticized her grief as excessive, the Romans said he was heartless.So in August 385, he left Rome for good and returned to Antioch, accompanied by his brother and several friends, followed a little later by the widow Paula & her daughter. The pilgrims, joined by Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, visited Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Galilee, then went to Egypt, home to the great heroes of the ascetic life.Late in the Summer of 388 he returned to Israel. A wealthy student of Jerome's founded a monastery in Bethlehem for him to administer. This monastery included 3 cloisters for women and a hostel for pilgrims.It was there he spent his last 34 years.  He finished his greatest contribution, begun in 382 at Pope Damasus's instruction: A translation of the Bible into Latin.The problem wasn't that there wasn't a Latin Bible; the problem was that there were so many! They varied widely in accuracy. Damasus had said, “If we're to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it's for our opponents to tell us which, for there are almost as many forms as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”At first, Jerome worked from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But then he established a precedent for later translators: the Old Testament would have to be translated from the original Hebrew. In his quest for accuracy, he learned Hebrew & consulted Jewish rabbis and scholars.One of the biggest differences he saw between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew was that the Jews did not include the books now known as the Apocrypha in their canon of Holy Scripture. Though he felt obligated to include them, Jerome made it clear while they might be considered “church-books” they were not inspired, canonical books.After 23 years, Jerome completed his translation, which Christians used for more than 1,000 years, and in 1546 the Council of Trent declared it the only authentic Latin text of the Scriptures.What marked this Bible as unique was Jerome's use of the everyday, street Latin of the times, rather than the more archaic classical Latin of the scholars. Academics & clergy decried it as vulgar, but it became hugely popular. The Latin Vulgate, as it was called, became the main Bible of the Roman church for the next millennium.Jerome's work was so widely revered that until the Reformation, scholars worked from the Vulgate. It would be another thousand years till translators worked directly from the Greek manuscripts of the NT. The Vulgate ensured that Latin, rather than Greek, would be the Western church's language, resulting centuries later in a liturgy & Bible lay people couldn't understand—precisely the opposite of Jerome's original intention. It's also why many scientific names & terms are drawn from Latin, rather than Greek which was the language of the scholars until the appearance of the Vulgate.The Latin Bible wasn't the only thing Jerome worked on while in Bethlehem. He also produced several commentaries, a catalogue of Christian authors, and a response to the challenge of the Pelagians, an aberrant teaching we'll take a look at in a future episode. To this period also belonged most of Jerome's polemics, his denunciations of works and people Jerome deemed dangerous. He produced a tract on the threat of some of Origen's errors. He denounced Bishop John of Jerusalem and others, including some one-time friends.Some of Jerome's writings contained provocative views on moral issues. When I say provocative, I'm being generous; they were aberrant at best and at points verged on heretical. All this came of his extreme asceticism. While the monasticism he embraced allowed him to produce a huge volume of work, his feverish advocacy of strict discipline was nothing less than legalistic extremism. He insisted on abstinence from a normal diet, employment, & even marital sex. His positions were so extreme in this regard, even other ascetics called him radical.As far as we know, none of Jerome's works were lost to the centuries. There are a few medieval manuscripts that mark his work in translating the Bible. Various 16th C collections are the earliest extant copies of his writings. Through the years, Jerome has been a favorite subject for artists, especially Italian Renaissance painters.He died at Bethlehem at the end of September of 420.