CHAPTER I: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
CHAPTER III: GOOD AND THE “FUNDAMENTAL PARADOX OF
CHRISTIANITY”
CHAPTER IV: EVIL AND THE THEODICY
CHAPTER V: CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
CHAPTER VIII: CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRESENT
CHAPTER X: THE “IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”
Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
NEW CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
The
original was published in Russian: ALEV-V Publishing House,
CHAPTER VII
“TWO NATURES”
I
We have seen that the dogma of “Trinity” has no
convincing basis in the Holy Scripture.
Having examined its forming on the public historical
material, we have understood that it was elaborated only as an instrument of
the political struggle of the 4th century.
And though at that time the “Trinity” was a
compromise, which was convenient for the Emperor and the majority of bishops,
we have to conclude in accordance with our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”
that the dogma of “Trinity” is a deposition on the teaching of Christ, and that
deposition belongs not to the moral imperative, but to “social” evil.
Let us look if our conclusion is confirmed by
historical facts. Did that dogma bring good or evil to the Christians?
It is not necessary to go far away from Early
Christianity to answer this question. The fact is that the creators of the
dogma of the “Trinity”, having contented themselves with the divine nature of
Christ and his descent from God, forgot that Jesus of Nazareth, nevertheless,
was born of the earthly woman, ate, drank, slept, got tired and suffered (John
4:6; 19:28; 11:33; Luke 22:44; Matt. 14:4; Mark 3:5 etc.) There were disputes
on that, but they were only an addition to much more scaled disputes on the
“Trinity”.
And in the beginning of the 5th century, the
Church’s theologians had to elaborate one more dogma to answer the question,
how the divine nature (which had been “legalized” by the dogma of the
“Trinity”) and the human nature (which could not be “repealed”) correlated in
Christ.
II
In the end of 420s, that question became a weapon in
another peak of the struggle for the power in the Church.
At that time, there were four main centers of the
Church:
In 419, Nestorius, the head of
Nestorius considered that Virgin Mary as a human could
give birth only to a human, so she must be called not “Theotokos” (Greek
“God-bearer”) but Christotokos (Christ-bearer) and Jesus got his divine nature
from God immediately after his birth.
Cyril insisted that the divine force came to Christ
even in the womb of Mary, and he accused Nestorius of the following to the
teaching of Paul of Samosata: if Christ had been born as a human, than he
remained a human independently upon the moment of the getting of the divine
force.
As we remember, exactly Paul of Samosata was the
predecessor of Arianism, and really, it turned out that the teaching of
Nestorius was understandable and acceptable for Barbarians-Arians – the
overwhelming majority of the garrison of
Nestorius managed to take advantage of that and to
become in 428 the Patriarch of Constantinople. But he was the Patriarch not
long – until 431, when Cyril of Alexandria, having won over to his side the
major part of monks, started a rebel against Nestorius in the capital. Emperor
Theodosius II, the adherent of Nestorius, could not help, and at the 3rd
Ecumenical Council in Ephesus Nestorius was deposed.
Let us not examine the terms “the divinity of child”
(the canon) and “the childhood of god” (the heresy). Nestorius affirmed the
first term, Cyril accused him of saying the second one. The Council in Ephesus
was hold extremely scandalously, to the accompaniment of the terrible noise of
the crowds of people, which were led by the monks – the followers of Cyril, and
it could not examine complicated theological problems.
Emperor Theodosius II “sold” Nestorius after all. The
latter was sent to a cloister, and then to the exile in
But we must note that Nestorius’ cause did not die:
Arianism in its time got a great echo in the West, among the Barbarians, and
Nestorianism spread along the continent to the East. Asian peoples mostly often
adopted Christianity in the interpretation of the former Patriarch.
And in 431, Cyril’s protege Maximian became the
Patriarch of Constantinople. Alexandria became the strongest Church center of
the Empire, and Cyril, having forgotten about caution, ceased attempts to find
a “balanced” correlation of the divine and human natures in Christ and in the
end of the life, started to give his view more frankly in his epistles: “We do
not profess two natures (the first – worshipped, the second – not worshipped)
in one Son, but one incarnated nature of the Word”.
And though Cyril specified that both natures united in
Christ into something average and unique, it turned out that this unity had the
divine nature – the dogma of “Trinity” had won half a century before, so what
other single nature could Christ have, if not the divine one?
III
It turned out that Cyril, not knowing that, became the
founder of Monophysitism – the teaching which asserted that Christ, though we
was born of two natures – the divine and the human – had only the first one,
and the human nature became an accessory of his divinity.
Immediately after Cyril’s death in 444, those ideas
were developed by the Constantinopolitan abbot Eutyches, and the new
Alexandrian patriarch Dioscorus. Exactly they formed Monophysitism
“organizationally”, and Eutyches won over to his side a number of monks.
Apropos, Monophysitism sometimes is called Eutychianism because of that.
Pope Leo I immediately opposed Monophysitism and,
having united with the Constantinopolitan patriarch Flavian, achieved the
condemnation of the Monophysites at the Council of Constantinople. The
opponents of Monophysitism had quite serious arguments: Jesus ate, slept,
prayed, doubted...
But nobody already was interested in common sense, so
Eutyches with Dioscorus managed to win the Emperor, idem Theodosius II, over
their side. In 449 so called “predatory” Council was gathered in
Pope Leo I and Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus
pronounced an anathema against each other immediately after the Council and
made the precedent for the process of the Schism, which lasted for many
centuries.
After the death of Pheodosius II, the matter took
another turn. Empress Pulcheria and her co-ruler Marcian turned out to be the
opponents of Monophysitism and called the 4th Ecumenical Council in
The Council of Chalcedon was held, as usually, quite
roughly, but on the basis of the epistle of the Pope, it elaborated the dogma
of “two natures”, which is still used by the major Churches.
Dioscorus was displaced, and that led to the local
schism: the decisions of the 4th Concil were never accepted in
IV
We have come to the second key dogma, which concerns
the nature of Jesus of Nazareth.
The 4th Ecumenical (
The “self-justifying” tone of the decision (“is by no
means done away...”) confirms that the dogma was accepted in a serious
struggle.
And a number of negative features (“without being
mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated”) arouse the suspicion that the
theologians answered all questions at the 4th Council, according to the old
principle “to each is own”.
Really, let us look at every key problem from
Is Christ a god or a man? Both, since the natures are
not mixed and their identities are presented.
Is Christ the single person at that? Single, since the
natures are not divided and separated.
Well, let us think: what is the nature? The origin?
If it had been only the origin! It is will, wish,
energy and operation.
The latter assertion is not my own surmise. That was
“clarified” at the 6th Ecumenical (
And four foresaid concepts are practically exhaustive
description of a person.
A tangled and casuistic determination of the 6th
Council concerning the moment, when the divine will in Christ became a human
wish and the correlation of divine and human operations, is not important for
us. It is important that the presence of two non-mixed “wishes, wills,
energies and operations” in Christ means the presence of two persons.
As a result, the same happened to the dogma of ‘two
natures” as to the “Trinity” seventy years before: each part of the problem was
solved separately.
The main goal was to connect the new dogma with the
“Trinity”: if there is a self-dependent divine nature, then it is “God the
Son”, “not made, one in Being with the Father”, “having no beginning”. And the
human essence also was present in Christ, but it was not related to the divine
one.
In short, separately – a god and a man (that is why
the Orthodox tradition calls Christ as the “Godman”).
And as a whole, a number of paradoxes took place –
like that the divine person of Christ existed eternally and knew everything,
but could not “whisper” to the human person that it is no necessity to doubt
about the future, to be upset and to pray in Gethsemane, and that it is
necessary to preach in Asia Minor, not in Jerusalem...
As a matter of fact, in our time this is called as a
split personality. At best, this means constant mental tortures, at worst – a
mental disease, and depending upon its weight, an ambulatory or hospital
treatment is settled.
And we read in the Gospel: “Every kingdom divided
against itself is brought to desolation” (Matt. 12:25).
V
But in the 5th century during the open struggle for power
in the Church, nobody was disturbed by theological paradoxes.
Having returned from Halcedon, monophysitic priests
started the rebellion in
Emperor Zeno in 482 issued a pro-Monophysitic
reconciliatory decree – so called “Henoticon” (“Union formula”), which only
aggravated the situation, because the anti-monophysitic Roman Church stopped relations
with the East for 35 years. It is no wonder – the domains of the Pope of Rome
were surrounded by Barbarians-Arians, and it was necessary to take them into
consideration. Monophysitism (the priority of the divine nature of Christ) was
the full antipode for Arianism (the priority of the human nature), and the
dogma of “two natures”, as we have seen, was some kind of compromise, and the
legates of Pope Leo I did not insist on it in vain.
But in
Emperor Zeno’s successor, Anastasius I, tried to
continue the reconciliatory police, but ceased his ruling in 518 quite
infamously: Monophysites started the rebellion in
After a greatly complicated mass of political
intrigues, in which the ruler of the major part of
Simultaneously the Patriarch of Constantinople was
replaced. Candidatures of Arians and Monophysites were proposed, but John II,
the adherent of Halcedon’s compromise, became the new Patriarch with a view to
calm raging disputes.
This time the compromise triumphed relatively firmly –
for about one hundred years. Monophysites yielded their positions in
Constantinople, but Roman Empire, at that time more often named Bysantine,
actually lost
We see that the discussions on the dogmas of the
“Trinity” and “two natures” turned out to be catalysts of the split of
Bysantine Empire and of the actual downfall of patriarchates of
VI
In the 6th century thanks to Justinian, a period of
relative peace came, and the 5th Ecumenical (Constantinopolitan) Council became
its top. Monophysites were condemned once more at that Council, heels of
Nestorianism were beaten completely, and it was decided to be possible to read
an anathema against heretics posthumously (particularly, Origen was
anathematized).
But in the 7th century, disputes started again.
Emperors, trying to restore the unity of the empire in the face of the
unsuccessful war against Persians, looked for a compromise with Monophysites.
Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, under the
agreement with the emperor in 619, declared that Christ, having two natures,
had only one will. The new theological trend – Monothelitism – began at that.
Let us note that it was a step to common sense, but
violent discussions started again. A “tree of variants” of correlation of
natures, wills, energies and operations in Christ was growing and growing.
Actually, every diocese in an answer to Sergius’ appeal put forward its own
view on the problem, and attempts to find a new compromise took many years.
In 638 it seemed that all was done, and even Pope
Honorius inclined to Monothelitism, but in this year, unfortunately, both Pope
Honorius and Patriarch Sergius died.
The new Pope, John IV, declared the resolute
non-acceptance of Monothelitism and the adherence to the Council of Halcedon.
His successor Martin I continued that way, and therefore in 653 by the order of
the emperor he was arrested, and in 655 condemned and exiled.
Philosopher Maximis the Confessor, the leader of
Monothelitism’s opponents, tried to prove with typical scholasticism that since
Christ had two natures, he was to have two wills. Common sense could not
overcome Maximus’ speculative logic, and he preferred the martyrdom: he was
condemned together with Pope Martin, lost his tongue and right hand, and was
exiled in 655.
Methods of struggle took more and more radical forms.
It seemed that emperors managed to achieve the triumph of Monothelitism.
But
That Council, on the basis of Pope’s bull, took the
compromise of Halcedon to the full and complete absurd, having declared the
presence of two wishes, two wills, two wills, two energies and two operations
in Christ.
All major world Churches live with this dogma until
now.
VII
Contemporary Churches use for the substantiation of
the dogma of “two natures” the following psychological method: the divine and
human natures of Christ are substantiated separately, each with a number of
references to the Holy Scripture. It seems to be evident that anyone, who is
primordially inclined in favor of the dogma of “two natures”, would draw the
conclusion that these natures are present in Christ “without being mixed,
transmuted, divided, or separated”, according to the Halcedon Council’s
resolution.
In actual fact, nothing is said in the Holy
Scripture about such relationship of the divine and human natures of Christ.
It is said many times that Christ is a god. “Doubting
Thomas” called him so (John 20:28), Jesus told much about his divine nature
himself (John 8:58; 10:30; 16:28), Apostle Paul confirmed that (Col. 1:16-17;
Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 3:9; Rom. 8:3; 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16 etc.)
But, so to speak, gods differ.
The task of the major Churches was to declare as gods
not all people, but only Christ (of course, not “canceling” God the
Father), and as a result, Jesus of Nazareth became the “second hypostase of the
Trinity” and the unique being of “two natures”, and he was absolutely teared
away from us by that.
But actually, as we shall see many times more, Jesus
is the same god as each of us is. Consequently, the same human as each of us
is. There is no fundamental and insuperable difference between the divine
nature of Jesus and other people.
Adherents of the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two
natures” assert: if Christ was a human then he, speaking about his divine
nature, deceived himself or us.
But the question is how to understand the word
“human”.
If people, in accordance with the orthodox and
catholic theology, are “fallen sinful creatures”, then Christ, possibly,
actually deceived.
But if we put into the word “human” the humanistic
understanding, which is dictated to us by the moral imperative, then Christ was
a human. And he was an absolutely honest human, because all words about his
divine nature he applied to all other people.
VIII
Let us read the Fourth Gospel once more.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”
(John 1:12-13).
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my father, and
ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20).
“Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom
thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11).
There is even a more self-evident confirmation of the
said.
“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we
stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of
God?” (John 10:34-36).
It turns out that Jesus Christ himself appealed to the
divine nature of other people, referring to the Book of Psalms – “I have said,
Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Ps. 82:6) – to
confirm his own divine nature.
And the words of Jesus – “For I came down from heaven
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” – have a symbolical
nature, which is confirmed by the further dialog between him and the Jews. It
was said there: “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”
(John 6:55-56).
This outline goes on also in Jesus’ prayer: “And now,
O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was” (John 17:5). The latter phrase may be interpreted
only as the predestination of Christ’s mission before the creation of the
world. Nothing else may be here, because in the same chapter it is said quite
clearly: “...Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”
(John 17:3).
Christ taught us one more fundamental subject. “Our
father” is the main and, by the highest standards, the only Christian prayer.
Christ considered as heathenism all other prayers (Matt. 6:7). But that is not
a point. Let us pronounce only its first two words and think over: we address
ourselves to our Father! This means that every human is the son of God (or the
daughter).
Having remembered the prayer “Our Father”, we have
turned to the first three Gospels. Exactly the human nature of Christ is
accentuated there.
When Christ healed the sick man, “the multitudes saw
it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men”
(Matt. 9:8);
Jesus said: “Why callest thou me good? There is none
good but one, that is, God”.
Let us remember also Jesus’ phrase in the “Sermon on
the Mount”: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God” (Matt. 7:9).
To understand once and for all, that Jesus is such a
god as we are, and we are such gods as he, let us note that Luke originated
Jesus from God not immediately, but through Joseph, David, Abraham, Heber and
Adam (Luke 3:23-38). And we all are descendants of Adam. Consequently, we are
same as Christ.
IX
Apostle Peter said: “Ye men of Israel, hear these
words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and
wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you” (Acts 2:22).
And Peter in his Epistle by only one phrase gave up for
lost all future conjectures about the “preexistence” of Jesus: he considered
Christ as “foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in
these last times for you, who by him do believe in God” (1 Pet. 1:20-21). It is
difficult to disagree that foreordainment and “preexistence” are not the same.
In the teaching of Apostle Paul, the nature of Christ
is interpreted quite indistinctly, so as the Old Testament’s Prophets
interpreted the nature of the Messiah. But the word “Messiah”, as we know,
means “Anointed by God”, i.e. it is a human, who is provided with some
divine capabilities.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Paul was concerned
by the problem of accurate definition of the nature of Christ – it was enough
for him to emphasize Jesus’ messianic role.
Let us cite an illustration in point. It is considered
that Paul wrote the solemn hymn: “And without controversy great is the mystery
of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory” (1 Tim. 3:16).
And this means that God himself came to us in flesh.
As we remember, the “Monarchian-Modalist” Sabellius expressed this point of
view. But it is impossible to wait for the theologian depth in a solemn hymn,
moreover the hymn of the quite doubtful authenticity (the words “Without
controversy” are not the sort of Paul’s). And let Paul call Christ sometimes a
god, sometimes a man – the Apostle never spoke about two natures “without being
mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated”.
And the overwhelming majority of Paul’s phrases about
our and Christ’s nature mean that Christ is such as we are. Let us quote:
“Because he (God – S.Z.) hath appointed a day, in the
which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath
ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised
him from the dead” (Acts 17:31);
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16);
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved” (
“But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then is
Christ not risen” (1 Cor. 15:13).
“Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall
raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you” (2 Cor. 4:14).
“Wherefore, holy brethern, partakers of the heavenly
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb.
3:1). Apropos, the address “Holy” is used by Paul in all the Epistles to the
Christians.
“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an
high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten
thee” (Heb. 5:5);
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). There is the short and clear
answer to all questions in this phrase.
And let us pay attention to the words: “Wherefore thou
art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through
Christ” (Gal. 4:7).
X
Soon we shall have a possibility to speak about
contemporary attempts to “modernize” and “actualize” the dogma of “two
natures”, and meanwhile let us state: two natures of Christ “without being
mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated” have no basis in the Holy Scripture.
The declaration of Jesus of Nazareth as the “second hypostase of the Trinity”
also has no basis there.
There is no difference between the divine nature of
Christ and other people.
But how could this position prevail in the Middle
Ages, if the understanding of people as gods became an obstacle for the
Church’s claims on political supremacy?
There is an interesting analogy. Let us ask the
question: why soldiers in armies of the majority of countries are firstly
humbled?
And “informal relations” have nothing to do with it –
the army system itself includes humbling. First of all, as it is well-known,
soldiers are taken out to a drill square, where for a long time they are taught
different formations, commands like “Attention!”, “Eyes right!”, and other
things, which seem to be useless in respect to common sense and military art.
Really, a soldier’s work seems to be shooting, running
with fool kit, digging trenches, firing grenades etc. But why must soldiers
march? To train coordination? They could creep, it is much more useful in a
battle. The traditions of times, when soldiers were led to attacks in lines and
formed up in squares? More than one hundred years have passed since that times,
but the drill is still the same. It may be understandable for “parade” troops,
but everyone in an army has to start from the drill.
And the point is that the cruel drill has the ancient
basis – to make a soldier feel that he is a pawn, whose life does not belong to
him and costs a little. If the command “Eyes right!” is followed by “Quick
march to the better world!”, its execution must be automatic.
As it is known, state principles of ruling in the
Middle Ages were similar to the army’s and were based on the cruel hierarchic
compulsion.
And from that point of view, it is absolutely
mistakenly to remind soldiers at a drill square that they are gods. It is much
more effective to cultivate the complex of “sinful creatures” in them.
So it came out that when the Church accepted the
complicated and contradictory dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, no
place for the divine nature of people in the Church’s theology remained.
CHAPTER VIII: CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRESENT
Sergey Zagraevsky © 2004
CHAPTER I: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
CHAPTER III: GOOD AND THE “FUNDAMENTAL PARADOX OF
CHRISTIANITY”
CHAPTER IV: EVIL AND THE THEODICY
CHAPTER V: CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
CHAPTER VIII: CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRESENT
CHAPTER X: THE “IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”