Doug Beaumont

Christological Heresies

These are the main heresies concerning the person of Christ. Orthodox doctrine affirms all that Scripture teaches about Christ - that He is both divine and human but only one person. Each of the heresies below gets something wrong with this formula. It is interesting to note that the first major problem the Church faced was a denial of Christ's humanity! Much of the problem seems to come from the neo-platonistic ideals of the religion of Gnosticism which declared material to be evil and spirit good (and thus could not join the two in any way). Much of the New Testament was written in response to these ideas before they ever codified into the official teachings which the Church later identified and condemned (e.g. the books of Colossians; 2 Peter; <1&2 John; Jude). NOTE: To save space I did not include row labels but they are: Title, Timeframe, Condemnation, and Comments.

Docetic	Valentinian	Ebionitian	Monarchian	Arian	Appollinarian	Nestorian	Eutychian	Adoptionism
1st century	2nd Century	2nd Century	2nd Century	4th century	4th century	5th century	5th century	8th Century
Denied Christ's humanity - it was only appearance.	Denied Christ's bodily humanity - it was a heavenly body.	Denied Christ's deity.	Denied Christ's essential deity.	Denied Christ's deity.	Denied Christ's humanity.	Denied Christ's single personhood.	Denied Christ's dual natures.	Denied Christ's essential deity - He became divinely adopted.
No official condemnation as such (but see Apollonarianism).	No official condemnation as such (but see Apollonarianism).	No official condemnation as such (but see Arianism).	Condemned by the Synod of Antioch in A.D. 268.	Condemned by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325	Condemned by the Councils of Antioch and Constantinople by A.D. 381	Condemned by the Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 431	Condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451	Condemned by the Council of Frankfort in A.D. 794
It is good that they affirm Christ's deity, but if Christ were not human He could not redeem humanity.	It is good that they affirm Christ's deity, but if Christ were not human He could not redeem humanity.	It is good to affirm Christ's humanity, but only a divine person is worthy of worship and can save.	It is good to distinguish between Christ's human nature (which died) from Christ's divine nature (which cannot die), but both are equal in Christ - only a (single) divine person is both worthy of worship and can redeem humanity.	It is good to affirm that Christ is subordinate to the Father, but only a divine person is worthy of worship and can save.	It is good to affirm both Christ's deity and His real humanity, but if Christ did not have a human mind, he would not be truly human and if Christ were not human He could not redeem humanity.	It is good to distinguish between Christ's human nature (which died) from Christ's divine nature (which cannot die), but only a (single) divine person is both worthy of worship and can redeem humanity.	It is good to affirm the singleness of Christ's person, but if Christ were neither human nor divine (but some mix of the two), he could not redeem humanity as its mediator.	It is good to affirm Christ's humanity, but only a divine person is worthy of worship and can save.