Christological Heresies in Picture Form!

I’m proof reading my systematic theology volume Evangelical Theology before I ship it off to my editor. One of my young padawan’s, the talented Miss Kirsten Mackerras, has done some drawings for me presenting Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Apollinarianism, and Hypostatic Union in picture form. Such a pictorializing enterprise I know is fraught with dangers, but I think they look pretty good and help explain the various christological heresies to students.

Vertical lines indicate divinity, horizontal lines humanity.

Let me know in the comments which diagram is the best one. I am especially interested in which version of hypostatic union best pictorializes the doctrine.

  • Robbie

    Is there a way to make this bigger? It’s hard to see the text.

  • Robbie

    Is there a way to make this bigger? It’s hard to see the text.

  • Mjns

    I am not quite sure this is a good idea, especially the hypostatic union diagrams. Understanding the relation of the two natures in a diagram seems impossible given the different ways (even Reformed) theologians have done this…

  • Mjns

    I am not quite sure this is a good idea, especially the hypostatic union diagrams. Understanding the relation of the two natures in a diagram seems impossible given the different ways (even Reformed) theologians have done this…

  • Charles Twombly

    Yes, hard to read. I basically like the Apollinarian and Nestorian diagrams. Not so sure about monophysitism and hypostatic union, especially the latter. In good Chalcedonian terms, not only do the two natures exist “without confusion, without union…” etc, but they coinhere in the “person” (hypostasis) of the Logos (who is the personalizing reality for both natures). Your diagram doesn’t quite bring out that dimension, at least not for me. Another challenge: diagramming both monothelitism and dyothelitism; these bring out the issues left unresolved by Chalcedon and (again, for me) bring the Christological controversy to a real resolution. Viewed from this angle, Chalcedon stands at the middle of the controversy and is not its “settlement” (a la JND Kelley and many others).

  • Charles Twombly

    Yes, hard to read. I basically like the Apollinarian and Nestorian diagrams. Not so sure about monophysitism and hypostatic union, especially the latter. In good Chalcedonian terms, not only do the two natures exist “without confusion, without union…” etc, but they coinhere in the “person” (hypostasis) of the Logos (who is the personalizing reality for both natures). Your diagram doesn’t quite bring out that dimension, at least not for me. Another challenge: diagramming both monothelitism and dyothelitism; these bring out the issues left unresolved by Chalcedon and (again, for me) bring the Christological controversy to a real resolution. Viewed from this angle, Chalcedon stands at the middle of the controversy and is not its “settlement” (a la JND Kelley and many others).

  • Pingback: Craig L. Adams

  • Pingback: dbgooglereader

  • http://proofreadingpal.com/academic-proofreading.php   academic proofreading servic

    I’ll definitely be updating the blog with any news on the outcome.

  • http://proofreadingpal.com/academic-proofreading.php   academic proofreadingservice

    I’ll definitely be updating the blog with any news on the outcome.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X