What is Docetism; Apollinarianism; Ebionism, and Eutychianism?

[Quasar92]

Docetism, Apollinarianism, Ebionism, and Eutychiaism (also known as monophysitism) are all false views of the relationship between Jesus' deity and humanity. Each of these views was rejected by the early church in the various early church councils. It is impossible for us to fathom how Jesus Christ can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That is the mystery of the hypostatic union. Each of these false views fail in that they overemphasize or under emphasize Jesus deity or humanity.

Docetism is the view that Jesus was God, but not human. Docetists essentially taught that Jesus only appeared to be human, but He in fact was not. Docetism contradicts many Scriptures, with John 1:14 and 1 John 4:1-3 being the most clear refutations of Docetism. Apollinarianism is the view that Jesus was God, but not fully human. Apollinarians taught that Jesus' human spirit was replaced by a divine spirit - that Jesus had a human body and soul, but not a human spirit. Similarly to Docetism, Apollinarianism is refuted by the many Scriptures which teach that Jesus was truly a human being (John 1:14; 1 John 4:1-3).

Ebionism is the view that Jesus was fully human, but not divine. Ebionites denied the deity of Christ. Ebionism viewed Jesus as a normal human being who was simply empowered by God. Ebionism is rejected by a multitude of Scriptures (John 1:1,14; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:8). Eutychianism is the view that Jesus was neither fully human or fully divine, but rather a mixture of humanity and divinity. Eutychianism is refuted by all of the Scriptures previously mentioned, both those affirming His deity and affirming His humanity. Yet another early church heresy relation to Christ's nature is Nestorianism. Nestorianism held that Jesus had two nature, human and divine, and that the two natures were entirely separate. Jesus was God, and Jesus was man, but essentially in two separate persons. From what we have studied in relation to the other views, Nestorianism is to be strongly rejected as well.

Docetism, Apollinarianism, Ebionism, Eutychiaism, and Nestorianism are all to be rejected because they are not Biblical views of Jesus' nature. Docetism and Apollinarianism deny Jesus' true humanity. Ebionism denies Jesus true deity. Eutychianism denies both Jesus' true humanity and true deity. Nestorianism misunderstands the relationship between Jesus' humanity and deity. Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human. That is the Biblical view!

Recommended Resource: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns.

Source: gotquestions


Quasar92

 

[Greg Logan]

Docetism, Apollinarianism, Ebionism, and Eutychiaism (also known as monophysitism) are all false views of the relationship between Jesus' deity and humanity. Each of these views was rejected by the early church in the various early church councils. It is impossible for us to fathom how Jesus Christ can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That is the mystery of the hypostatic union. Each of these false views fail in that they overemphasize or under emphasize Jesus deity or humanity.

Ebionism is the view that Jesus was fully human, but not divine. Ebionites denied the deity of Christ. Ebionism viewed Jesus as a normal human being who was simply empowered by God. Ebionism is rejected by a multitude of Scriptures (John 1:1,14; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:8).

Docetism, Apollinarianism, Ebionism, Eutychiaism, and Nestorianism are all to be rejected because they are not Biblical views of Jesus' nature. Docetism and Apollinarianism deny Jesus' true humanity. Ebionism denies Jesus true deity. Eutychianism denies both Jesus' true humanity and true deity. Nestorianism misunderstands the relationship between Jesus' humanity and deity. Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human. That is the Biblical view!

You have done a nice job of pulling a quote out from somewhere. However, this quote suffers from a severe internal defect. If "It is impossible for us to fathom how Jesus Christ can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time." - then how in God's name could these same authors make ANY CLAIM about either the deity OR the humanity of Christ - or judge Christology at all. For them to create or judge a Christology - they necessarily are asserting that they DO FATHOM how all this works.... Seems painfully obvious.

I have a better approach. How about trying this question on for size -

Can the man Christ Jesus fully function independent of an incarnated deity - just like you, I and ALL men can fully function independent of an incarnated deity?

I look forward to what you come up with....

Best

Greg

PS The Ebionites were probably the EARLIEST Jewish Christians and like reflected most closely the true Apostolic teaching. The whole Logos Christology thing emerged somewhere in very late 2nd or early 3rd centuries - and then was a minority view as Tertullian makes quite clear in Adv Praxeas Ch3.

 

[Quasar92]

You have done a nice job of pulling a quote out from somewhere. However, this quote suffers from a severe internal defect. If "It is impossible for us to fathom how Jesus Christ can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time." - then how in God's name could these same authors make ANY CLAIM about either the deity OR the humanity of Christ - or judge Christology at all. For them to create or judge a Christology - they necessarily are asserting that they DO FATHOM how all this works.... Seems painfully obvious.

I have a better approach. How about trying this question on for size -

Can the man Christ Jesus fully function independent of an incarnated deity - just like you, I and ALL men can fully function independent of an incarnated deity?

I look forward to what you come up with....

Best

Greg

PS The Ebionites were probably the EARLIEST Jewish Christians and like reflected most closely the true Apostolic teaching. The whole Logos Christology thing emerged somewhere in very late 2nd or early 3rd centuries - and then was a minority view as Tertullian makes quite clear in Adv Praxeas Ch3.

The human Jesus is the Son of His Father, the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35.. Think about that one for awhile.

As to your question, I would not care to speculate.


Quasar92

 

[Greg Logan]

The human Jesus is the Son of His Father, the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35.. Think about that one for awhile.

As to your question, I would not care to speculate.


Quasar92

This is what I am personally challenged by - everything the traditions advocate is speculation....

Why make assertions if one is not going to speculate - especially not speculate on one's own model? If one cannot even address their model - then they obviously do not understand their own model.

Should a person be advocating that model that they don't even understand??? How do they know it is correct if they do not even know what it is.....??? Should they be criticizing anyone else's model??

Those are some of my personal challenges with what you are suggesting.

 

[rakovsky]

Docetism is the view that Jesus was God, but not human. Docetists essentially taught that Jesus only appeared to be human, but He in fact was not. Docetism contradicts many Scriptures, with John 1:14 and 1 John 4:1-3 being the most clear refutations of Docetism.

Quasar,
Since you raised the issue of Docetism, let me ask you a question. I read the surviving section of the Gospel of Peter and don't think that the section is Docetic. During the crucifixion, Jesus cries that His power has forsaken Him, and after He dies, the document still refers to His corpse as the Lord. In contrast, Docetism teaches that Christ only seemed to be human, have a physical body, and to suffer. I suppose that a person could argue that when He cries that His power had forsaken Him, He was not suffering, just losing power. But any way, I don't see anything clearly Docetic in the text.

In contrast, Bishop Serapion at the end of the 2nd century wrote that he got a copy of the document from the successors of its authors, whom he calls Docetists. Presumably he is talking about the same document. I wrote about this issue here: THE GOSPEL OF PETER (70-160). Question: Is it Docetic?

What would you make of this?