Christological doctrines
1. Ideas Regarding the Will & Energy
These debates arose after the "Nature" disputes, arguing that if Christ has two natures, how many "wills" or "acting forces" does he have?
Monothelitism: The belief that Christ has two natures (divine and human) but only one will (a divine will that supersedes the human).
Dyothelitism: The Orthodox/Catholic counter-position that Christ has two wills (divine and human) working in perfect harmony, rather than the human will being absorbed or overridden.
Monoenergism: The belief that Christ acts through a single "energy" or activity (divine-human operation), rather than having two distinct sets of actions.
2. Ideas Regarding the Reality of the Natures
These doctrines question whether the "flesh" or "divinity" was real or merely an illusion.
Docetism: The belief that Christ’s physical body and crucifixion were illusions. It asserts he was purely spirit and only seemed to be human (from the Greek dokein, "to seem").
Aphthartodocetism: A specific subset of Monophysitism teaching that Christ’s body was incorruptible from the moment of conception—meaning he could not naturally suffer, hunger, or die, but did so only by a voluntary miracle.
Psilanthropism: The belief that Jesus was merely human (a "mere man") and not divine in any ontological sense.
3. Ideas Regarding the Origin & Status
These define the relationship between the Son and the Father.
Arianism: The doctrine that the Son is a created being distinct from and subordinate to the Father. It argues there was a time when the Son "was not."
Adoptionism: The belief that Jesus was born a normal human and was later "adopted" as the Son of God (usually at his baptism) due to his perfect righteousness.
Sabellianism (Modalism): The belief that God is one person who reveals Himself in three different "modes" or "masks." In this view, Father, Son, and Spirit are not distinct persons but temporary manifestations of the same Monad.
Patripassianism: A consequence of Sabellianism; the belief that because the Father and Son are the same person, the Father suffered on the cross.
4. Ideas Regarding Knowledge & Suffering
Specific attempts to explain the limits of the "God-Man."
Theopaschism: The assertion that "God suffered" in the flesh. While accepted in a qualified sense by Miaphysites (Cyrilline Christians), it was rejected by Nestorians who believed only the humanity suffered.
Agnoetae: A sect asserting that Christ’s human nature was ignorant of certain things (like the hour of the Last Judgment), emphasizing a distinct limitation in his humanity.
Eutychianism: An extreme form of Monophysitism teaching that Christ’s human nature was dissolved into his divine nature "like a drop of honey in the ocean," resulting in a being that is not consubstantial with humanity.
Summary Comparison Table
| Doctrine | Core Idea |
| Miaphysitism | One united nature (humanity & divinity united without separation). |
| Monophysitism | One singular nature (divinity overwhelms humanity). |
| Dyophysitism | Two distinct natures (human & divine coexist in one person). |
| Monothelitism | Two natures, but only One Will. |
| Docetism | No physical body; pure spirit appearing as human. |
| Arianism | Created being; not co-eternal with God. |
| Sabellianism | One Person; Jesus is a "mode" of the Father. |
The Core Linguistic Distinction: "Mia" vs. "Mono"
The confusion often stems from Greek etymology. While both roots translate to "one," they carry vastly different theological implications:
Monophysitism (Monos = "Only/Single"): Implies a singular, simple nature.1 It suggests that in the union, one nature (divinity) destroyed or absorbed the other (humanity).2
Miaphysitism (Mia = "One" as a unity): Implies a composite unity.3 It describes a unity created from two distinct things that remain unmixed.
Analogy: A human being is "one nature" (Mia) composed of body and soul.4 The soul does not turn into the body, nor does the body dissolve into the soul. They are distinct components that form one reality.5
2. Comparative Analysis of Christologies
| Ideology | Key Formula | The Nature(s) of Christ | The Fate of Humanity | Status |
| Miaphysitism | "One incarnate nature of God the Word" | 1 Composite Nature. Divinity and humanity are united without separation, confusion, or alteration. They are distinct in reality but inseparable in existence. | Preserved. Humanity remains fully intact within the union, just as a soul does not "destroy" the body it inhabits. | Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox: Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.) |
| Eutychianism (Monophysitism) | "Two natures before, one after" | 1 Fused Nature. The human nature is absorbed by the divine nature like "a drop of vinegar in the ocean." Creates a tertium quid (third new substance). | Obliterated. Christ is not consubstantial with us (humans); he is a new, solely divine/hybrid being. | Heretical (Rejected by all major churches, including Miaphysites) |
| Dyophysitism (Chalcedonian) | "Two natures in one Person" | 2 Distinct Natures. Divinity and humanity coexist in one hypostasis (person) without confusion, change, division, or separation. | Distinct. The two natures retain their specific properties and operations (e.g., the human nature suffers, the divine does not) but act as one agent. | Orthodox (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, most Protestants) |
| Nestorianism | "Two natures, two qnoma (essences)" | 2 Loosely Joined Natures. Emphasizes the distinction so strongly it often implies two distinct subjects (the Man Jesus and the Divine Logos) working in partnership. | Separated. The human man suffered; the Divine God did not. The union is volitional (will-based), not ontological (being-based). | Heretical (Church of the East historically; though modern dialogue suggests this was largely linguistic) |
| Apollinarianism | "God in a bod" | 1 Nature. The Divine Logos replaced the human rational soul/mind. Jesus had a human body but a Divine mind. | Truncated. Jesus is not fully human because he lacks a human mind/soul. | Heretical (Rejected at Constantinople I, 381 AD) |
3. The "Red-Hot Iron" Analogy
This classic analogy helps visualize the difference between the three main views (Miaphysite, Eutychian, Nestorian) using the image of iron put into fire:
Miaphysite (Cyrilline) View: The iron glows red with heat. It is one reality (fire-united-iron). You cannot touch the iron without touching the fire, and you cannot touch the fire without touching the iron. However, the fire remains fire (it burns) and the iron remains iron (it is solid). They are united without confusion.
Eutychian (Monophysite) View: The iron melts and dissolves completely into the fire, ceasing to be iron. It becomes a new substance—neither pure fire nor pure iron.
Nestorian View: Two bars (one iron, one fire) are glued together or held side-by-side. They are close, but distinct entities.
4. Why "Monophysite" is Offensive to Oriental Orthodox
Calling a Copt or Armenian a "Monophysite" is effectively calling them a Eutychian heretic. It accuses them of believing Christ's humanity was dissolved. They prefer Miaphysite because it affirms they follow St. Cyril’s formula, which preserves the full humanity and full divinity in a mystery of unity.6
Historical Note: The schism at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) was largely driven by fear. The Chalcedonians (Dyophysites) were afraid of Eutychianism (losing the humanity), while the Non-Chalcedonians (Miaphysites) were afraid of Nestorianism (splitting Christ into two persons).