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).

---

Bahira (Arabic: بحيرى‎, Classical Syriac: ܒܚܝܪܐ), or "Sergius the Monk" to the Latin West, was a Syriac or Bahrani^[1] Gnostic Manichean Nasorean or Nestorian (or Arian^[2]) monk who, according to tradition, foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career.^[3][4] His name derives from the Syriac bḥīrā, meaning “tested (by God) and approved”.^[5]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Islamic tradition
• 2 Christian tradition
• 3 Bibliography
• 4 References

Islamic tradition[edit]

Muhammad meets the monk Bahira. From Jami' al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History") c. 1315.

The story of Muhammad's encounter with Bahira is found in the works of the early Muslim historians Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi, and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, whose versions differ in some details. When Muhammad was either nine or twelve years old, he met Bahira in the town of Bosra in Syria during his travel with a Meccan caravan, accompanying his uncle Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib.^[3] When the caravan was passing by his cell, the monk invited the merchants to a feast. They accepted the invitation, leaving the boy to guard the camel. Bahira, however, insisted that everyone in the caravan should come to him.^[4] Then a miraculous occurrence indicated to the monk that Muhammad was to become a prophet.

It was a miraculous movement of a cloud that kept shadowing Muhammad regardless of the time of the day. The monk revealed his visions of Muhammad's future to the boy's uncle (Abu Talib), warning him to preserve the child from the Jews (in Ibn Sa'd's version) or from the Byzantines (in al-Tabari's version). Both Ibn Sa'd and al-Tabari write that Bahira found the announcement of the coming of Muhammad in the original, unadulterated gospels, which he possessed; the standard Islamic view is that Christians corrupted the gospels, in part by erasing any references to Muhammad.^[3]

Christian tradition[edit]

See also: Criticism of Muhammad

Muhammad and the Monk Sergius, engravingof 1508 by Lucas van Leyden (see text).

In the Christian tradition Bahira became a heretical monk, whose errant views inspired the Qur'an. Bahira is at the center of the Apocalypse of Bahira, which exists in Syriac and Arabic which makes the case for an origin of the Qur'an from Christian apocrypha. Certain Arabist authors maintain that Bahira's works formed the basis of those parts of the Qur'an that conform to the principles of Christianity, while the rest was introduced either by subsequent compilers such as Uthman Ibn Affan or contemporary Jews and Arabs." The names and religious affiliations of the monk vary in different Christian sources. For example, John of Damascus (d.749), a Christian writer, states that Muhammad "having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy."^[6]

For Abd-al-Masih al-Kindi, who calls him Sergius and writes that he later called himself Nestorius, Bahira was a Nasorean, a group usually conflated with the Nestorians. After the 9th century, Byzantine polemicists refer to him as Baeira or Pakhyras, both being derivatives of the name Bahira, and describe him as an iconoclast. Sometimes Bahira is called a Jacobite or an Arian. The early Christian polemical biographies of Muhammad share in claiming that any supposed illiteracy of Muhammad did not imply that he received religious instruction solely from the angel Gabriel, and often identified Bahira as a secret, religious teacher to Muhammad.^[5]

Bibliography[edit]

• Maulana Muhammad Al (2002), The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation and Commentary, New Addition, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’ at Islam Lahore Inc., Ohio, USA.
• Osman Kartal (2009), The Prophet’s Scribe Athena Press, London (a novel)
• B. Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā. Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Texts and Studies 9; 2008) (includes editions, translations and further references).
• K. Szilágyi, Muhammad and the Monk: The Making of the Christian Baḥīrā Legend, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 34 (2008), in press.
• Abel, A. (1935) “L'Apocalypse de Bahira et la notion islamique du Mahdi” Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientale III, 1-12. Alija Ramos, M.
• Griffith, S. H. (1995). "Muhammad and the Monk Bahîrâ: Reflections on a Syriac and Arabic text from early Abbasid times". Oriens Christianus (in English). Vol. 79: pp. 146–174. ISSN 0340-6407. OCLC 1642167.
• Griffith, S. H. (January 2000). "Disputing with Islam in Syriac: The Case of the Monk of Bêt Hãlê and a Muslim Emir". Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3 (No. 1).

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ Al-Masudi, "Muruj adh-dhahab wa ma'adin al-jawhar" ,وقال المسعودي، ت : 345 هـ إن بحيرا الراهب على دين المسيح عيسى بن مريم، واسم بحيرا في النصارى سرجس، وكان من عبد القيس.
2. Jump up^ Jean Damascène, Des hérésies, chap. CI.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Abel, A. "Baḥīrā". Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second edition. Brill. Brill Online, 2007 [1986].
4. ^ Jump up to:^a b Watt, W. Montgomery (1964). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 1-2. Oxford University Press.
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b Roggema, Barbara. "Baḥīrā." Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited by: Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online, 2014 [2011]. Accessed July 12, 2014.
6. Jump up^ St. John of Damascus's Critique of Islam; from Writings, by St John of Damascus (De Haeresibus, chap. 101), The Fathers of the Church vol. 37 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), pp. 153-160.

[hide] v t e Precursors in religion Precursors Asita Báb Bahira (Sergius) John the Baptist Sayyid Kazim Rashti Shaykh Ahmad

Categories:

• 6th-century Christians
• Christianity and Islam
• Life of Muhammad
• Assyrian people
• Precursors in religion

Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arius Acacians Anomoeanism Arian controversy First Council of Nicaea Lucian of Antioch Gothic Christianity
Arian leaders
Acacius of Caesarea Aëtius Demophilus of Constantinople Eudoxius of Antioch Eunomius of Cyzicus Eusebius of Caesarea Eusebius of Nicomedia Eustathius of Sebaste George of Laodicea Ulfilas
Other Arians
Asterius the Sophist Auxentius of Milan Auxentius of Durostorum Constantius II Wereka and Batwin Fritigern Alaric I Artemius Odoacer Theodoric the Great
Modern semi-Arians
Samuel Clarke Isaac Newton William Whiston
Opponents
Peter of Alexandria Achillas of Alexandria Alexander of Alexandria Hosius of Cordoba Athanasius of Alexandria Paul I of Constantinople
Christianity portal
v t e

Arianism is the nontrinitarian, theological teaching attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christianpresbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God the Father to the Son of God,Jesus Christ. Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,^[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.^[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)^[3]passage: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius, supported by the Council of Rimini, which are in opposition to the post-Nicaean Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals). Modern Christian groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism include Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism, though the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius.^[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Origin
• 2 Beliefs
• 3 First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath
• 4 Theological debates
• 5 Theodosius and the Council of Constantinople
• 6 Later debates
• 7 Early medieval Germanic kingdoms
• 8 Remnants in the West, 5th to 7th centuries
• 9 "Arian" as a polemical epithet
• 10 Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century
• 11 See also
• 12 References
  • 12.1 Bibliography
  • 12.2 Notes
  • 12.3 Further reading
• 13 External links

Origin[edit]

Main articles: Arius and Arian controversy

Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally.^[5] Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world. The Son of God is subordinate to God the Father.^[6] In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature", in the sense of "created being". Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as Jesus saying that the father is "greater than I" (John 14:28), and "The LORD/Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs8:22).^[7]

Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests and monks to bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Such a deep controversy within the Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.^[8]Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging inheresy;^{[citation needed]} but others reinvent Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity,^{[citation needed]} or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.^{[citation needed]} Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at theCouncil of Nicea, only two bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed, which condemned Arianism.^[9] Two Roman emperors, Constantius II andValens, became Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Lucian of Antioch had contended for a Christology very similar to what would later be known as Arianism^{[citation needed]} and is thought to have influenced its development.^{[citation needed]} (Arius was a student of Lucian's private academy in Antioch.) After the dispute over Arianism became politicized and a general solution to the divisiveness was sought—with a great majority holding to the Trinitarian position—the Arian position was officially declared heterodox.

Arianism continued to exist for several decades, even within the family of the emperor, the imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy.^{[citation needed]} But, by the end of the 4th century it had surrendered its remaining ground to Trinitarianism in the official Roman church hierarchy.^{[citation needed]} In western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught by Ulfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among the Goths and Lombards (and, significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals); but it ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century, as the rulers of these Germanic tribes gradually adopted Catholicism, beginning with Clovis I of the Franks in 496. It was crushed through a series of military and political conquests,^{[citation needed]} culminating in religious and political domination of Europe over the next 1,000 years by Trinitarian forces in the Catholic Church. Trinitarianism has remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and later within Protestantism.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ... "

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians^[10]