Gregory of Nazianzus

The five “Theological Orations” of Gregory of Nazianzus represent at once Gregory's public response to his theological opponents as well as the most sustained and systematic presentation of his own Trinitarianism. They begin with an explicit address to the "Eunomians," the Neo-Arian followers of Eunomius of Cyzicus. Composed on the eve of the Nicenes' return to power in Constantinople after forty years in the ecclesiastical wilderness, the Theological Orations are presented as a vade mecum for a community still under persecution.
This paper demonstrates how the set of Theological Orations constitute a response to another handbook compiled for a different theological community under persecution: the Syntagmation of Aetius. This short text begins with an address by Aetius to his persecuted "Anomoean" followers and takes the form of a list of questions and answers for use in theological disputes. Gregory's orations should be read in conjunction with the Syntagmation, as Gregory responds point-for-point to the concerns raised by Aetius and positions himself against the followers of Eunomius, the disciple and successor of Aetius himself.

In the antiquity a friendship was always a source of friends mutual enrichment despite it should ideally have been completely selfless. A new teaching brought by Christ allows someone to sacrifice their own happiness which supposed to be, according to ancient philosophers, the main target of human life for the sake of their friends' happiness. Thus friendship takes some new forms which have become obvious since. Initially writings treating of friendship were created as a by-product of the work on commentaries on the Bible excerpts. In the golden age of patristics, however, rapid development of the Christian literature began. In addition to the strictly dogmatic treatises also autobiographies and diaries were appearing. Some of them describe personal experiences of their authors' friendships. Teaching on friendship conveyed by the Fathers of the Church is not only a synthesis of the earlier ideas but also their improvement and supplement. Knowledge of the classical philosophic texts constituted a foundation on which writers of the first centuries built an understanding of friendship remaining up to date.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD) developed a robustly Trinitarian framework for biblical interpretation. Understanding his pneumatological conception of illumination and deification enables us to understand his distinction between impious and pious (or virtuous) readings of Scripture. This speaks to some of the problems inherent in modern exegesis.

Abstract - Gregory the Theologian, also known as Gregory of Nazianzus (though was a great father and teacher of the Christian
Church. "The Theologian", is the premier teacher on the Holy Trinity in Eastern Christian tradition. Also he is the first father that
he indentified who is the real theologian. The theologian is the person who speaks about the God not only with the words, but
with his heart. He should purify himself from the sin and try always to love God with words and with his actions. Only then, he
will be covered with the divine bless and he will able to understand the attributes of God.
Keywords - Gregory Nazianzus, Thaologian, Ousia, Triadology, Attributes, Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Abstract: Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, is one of the most important fathers and saints of the Christianity, because of his theological thought and his intense poetical style in his work. He is thought as a writer of a unique beauty and brilliance in his writings. In his era, the teachings of Eunomius and Macedonius were a great threat for the Church. The apprehension of the divine nature, being pure spirit, is impossible for a materially based consciousness, and the only hope for human beings to have knowledge of God, therefore, is founded upon their ability to transcend material limitation, when the soul is invited back by God to its true spiritual nature and destiny (τέλος) in communion with God. This economy of salvation, described as a purification and ascent, determines from the outset the radically ‘economic’ nature of theology for Gregory. Gregory insists on explaining how the Holy Spirit exists, underlining that the way of the existence of every person of the Holy Trinity is unique for each of Them. The word ἴδιον (idion: specific) is used to show the relationship between the persons of the Triune God, and not their common nature. For this reason the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit are referred to their relationship, and not to οὐσία (ousia: essence). Also these names (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) do not show the actions of the Holy Persons, because they are common. Otherwise there would be the danger to the Son of not being God. He would be only a creature. For the first time, Gregory uses the unity of the persons of the Holy Trinity as a pattern of the unity of the two natures of incarnated Word, Christ. He uses this type of pattern, because Gregory saw the danger of the heretical teaching of Apollinarius. The latter supports that the human nature of Christ is absorbed by the divine one. Also, there is another heretical danger in thinking the recruitment of human nature by the divine one as superficial, false, not real. So the Christ would not be real Human and God and He could not save the human race. It is clear that Gregory’s trinitarian doctrine originates in a primary and profound soteriological imperative.

Resumen: Gregorio Nacianceno, el Teólogo, es uno de los padres y los santos más importantes de la cristiandad, a causa de su pensamiento teológico y el intenso estilo poético de su obra. Es considerado como un escritor de una belleza y una brillantez únicas en sus escritos. En su época, las enseñanzas de Eunomio y Macedonio eran una gran amenaza para la Iglesia. La aprehensión de la naturaleza divina, siendo espíritu puro, es imposible para una conciencia basada en lo material, y la única esperanza para los seres humanos de tener conocimiento de Dios, por lo tanto, se basa en su capacidad de trascender la limitación material, cuando el alma es invitada por Dios a regresar a su verdadera naturaleza espiritual y su destino (τέλος) en la comunión con Dios. Esta economía de la salvación, descrita como una purificación y ascensión, determina desde el principio la naturaleza radicalmente “económica” de la teología de Gregorio. Gregorio insiste en explicar cómo el Espíritu Santo existe, subrayando que el camino de la existencia de cada persona de la Santísima Trinidad es único para cada una de ellas. La palabra ἴδιον (idion) se utiliza para mostrar la relación entre las personas de Dios uno y trino, y no su naturaleza común. Por esta razón los nombres del Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo hacen referencia a su relación mutua, y no a la ousía. Además estos nombres (Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo) no muestran las acciones de las personas divinas, porque son comunes. De lo contrario, habría el riesgo de que el Hijo no fuese Dios, sino solo una creatura. Por primera vez, Gregorio utiliza la unidad de las personas de la Santísima Trinidad como modelo de la unidad de las dos naturalezas del Verbo de Dios encarnado, Cristo. Él utiliza este tipo de modelo, porque Gregorio vio el peligro de la enseñanza herética de Apolinar. Este último sostiene que la naturaleza humana de Cristo es absorbida por la divina. Además, hay otro peligro herético en pensar la adopción de la naturaleza humana por la divina como superficial, falsa, irreal. Así Cristo no sería verdaderamente Hombre y Dios, y él no podría salvar a la raza humana. Está claro que la doctrina trinitaria de Gregory se origina en un primario y profundo imperativo soteriológic

The present work focuses on the saving dimension of incarnation in Gregory of Nazianzus’ writings. After clarifying what mystery means when applied to incarnation, the first part of the article underlines the view of man as a “combination” and synthesis of the earthly element and the spiritual one; this anthropology cannot ignore the Fall of Man. The second part approaches the mystery of Incarnation as a “new combination” of the human and the divine: the elements which mix, the principles which describe this mixture and, finally, the redeeming effect of the Incarnation of the Word.

This article explores whether we can speak of an aggregate Christian cosmology or doctrine of creation constructed by the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. While discouraging the possibility of identifying a perfectly contoured 'system' of Cappadocian cosmology, I argue that there are certain 'first principles' and doctrinal correlates shared by this triumvirate. More helpful is to approach their constructive theology of creation from the standpoint of its basic epistemological protocols of theologia, which lay down the ground rules for Christian language of Creator and creation, and the^ oria, the church's 'sanctified intuition' of the meaning of the world. The^ oria, as 'contemplation' in the broadest sense, enables the Cappadocians to envision the world, through the lens of sacred history, as a theatre of tragedy and beauty, and as the matrix of the triune Creator's aspiration to bring about an ever-renewed creation.

Courtney J. P. Friesen explores shifting boundaries of ancient religions by way of the reception of a popular tragedy, Euripides’ Bacchae . As a play staging political crises provoked by the arrival of the “foreign” god Dionysus and his ecstatic cult, audiences and readers found resonances with their own cultural moments. This dramatic deity became emblematic of exuberant and liberating spirituality and, at the same time, a symbol of imperial conquest. Thus, readings of the Bacchae frequently foreground conflicts between religious autonomy and political authority, and between ethnic diversity and social cohesion. This cross-disciplinary study traces appropriations and evocations of this drama ranging from the fifth century BCE through Byzantium not only among “pagans” but also Jews and Christians. Writers variously articulated their religious visions over against Dionysus, often while paradoxically adopting the god’s language and symbols. Consequently, imitation and emulation are at times indistinguishable from polemics and subversion.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

Gregory of Nazianzus is an important case study for the development of autobiography, not only because he is one of the first Christians to write extended autobiographical texts, but also because he does so in verse. This paper addresses two interwoven questions: Which strategies does Gregory employ in his autobiographical poems in order to create credibility for his liter-ary self, and which of the motifs that he uses are innovative or specific to his autobiographical poetry? I suggest that Gregory constructs credibility mainly through his relationships with different entities (persons, objects, ideas ...) represented in the poems. In some of the relation-ships (e. g., with his opponents) one can find clear parallels with pagan poets while in others, specifically Christian elements come into play (sometimes blended with pagan traditions). Gregory’s most original idea appears in his relationship with his medium of communication, where one can find a justification for poetic autobiography as a genre.

This thesis analyzes the use of partitive exegesis in Gregory of Nazianzus’s Five Theological Orations and employed against the Eunomians. By seeking the interpretive, historical, and polemical contexts of the Five Theological Orations, this thesis seeks to secure a “right reading” of Gregory, and in doing so, understand partitive exegesis as a hermeneutical tool utilized by Gregory in his anti-Eunomian argumentation. The thesis then provides an extended commentary on select portions of Oration 29 and Oration 30 to demonstrate how Gregory applies his partitive rule throughout.

The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated by the Church fathers in the councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), which penned the Nicene Creed. We will see that Nicene Trinitarianism teaches that the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being. These terms, in their ancient Greek context, indicate that the Trinity is three subjects who share a single nature. However, this formulation naturally raises the question whether Nicene Trinitarianism is monotheistic. In affirmation of Nicea’s monotheism, we will see that all three uses of the word “God” in Christian theology are singular, despite the Trinitarian plurality of subjects. Hence, Nicene Trinitarianism is rightly labeled monotheistic, even though it is a unique type of monotheism. We will then look at three important differences between God and creatures that must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of Nicene Trinitarianism. These are (1) the divine subjects are not spatially or materially separated the way created individuals are; (2) the divine subjects, unlike created individuals, are distinguished by their relations to one another and not by material accidents of size, color, or location; and (3) because the divine subjects are differentiated by their relations, they, unlike created individuals, have no autonomous existence apart from one another.

Over the past fourteen centuries, Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 330–390 C.E.) has been the subject of more than a dozen biographical narratives and monographs, beginning with the late antique hagiography of Gregory the Presbyter and concluding with the modern biography by John McGuckin. This is likely the result of Gregory’s vast autobiographical corpus, which has provided scholars with a chronological narrative and character perspective from which to start their own secondary narratives. By examining this tradition of biography, I argue that two trends remain regularly operative. First, each biographer has consistently endowed his subject with his own values, ideals, and theo- logical commitments. Second, each biography has given pride of place to Gregory’s autobiographical voice. To make a precise demonstration of the latter trend, I follow the notorious Maximus affair from its presentation in Gregory’s autobiography and in the biographical tradition, showing how Gregory’s narrative remains almost entirely intact and unscrutinized. Ultimately I contend that the generic boundaries between autobiography, hagiography, and biography have broken down and suggest that readers subject autobiographical texts, along with their content, structure, style, and narrative, to rhetor- ical analysis rather than treat them as texts that reveal, with varying degrees of transpar- ency, the authentic personality of their author.

The Final Pagan Generation shows how the generation of Romans born in the 310s adapted to their changing religious and political environments.  The included chapter introduces the religious landscape of the Roman world of the early fourth century and sets the stage for their story.

[ Uncorrected proofs ] Christianity has emerged in history as a community of learners, disciples of a Teacher, Jesus Christ, and his successors, the apostles. More a philosophical school than a religious movement, from the outset Christianity has focused on the teaching and wisdom of the Founder, which it construed as “the way” to knowledge and perfection. Gnosis, the knowledge revealed by the Teacher and explained by his successors, was interwoven with the practical life, or the virtuous and spiritual experience, and so inherent to Christianity. Holistically understood, the gnostic dimension was nevertheless central for many theologians, from the second to at least the eighth Christian century. Herein I offer glimpses of their elaborations, pointers to a phenomenon whose breadth and complexity far exceeds the parameters of this chapter.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

A talk given to the hierarchs, clergy, professors, students and guests of Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, in Jordanville, NY, who gathered for the feastday of the school, that of the Three Hierarchs, Ss. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, on January 30, 2017 (February 12, according to the civil calendar). 

The talk examines the two types of wisdom (ἄνωθεν and θύραθεν), the process of coming to the knowledge (επίγνωσης) of Truth, the work of a seminary, which is to create mystagogues, the presuppositions of dogmatic theology and knowledge, and the inrelation of dogma and ethos, faith and life.

A theological assessment of the recent turn to Chalcedon and the non-competitive relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity. In response to Rowan Williams' Christ the Heart of Creation and Ian McFarland's The Word Made Flesh, the essay argues for a more dogmatically and ecumenically plausible Christology in the Cyrilline, Neo-Chalcedonian movement of the sixth and twentieth centuries.

In the forty-one oration, Gregory of Nazianzus analyzes the divinity of the Holy Spirit, a subject that is developed again with more severe way in his Fifth Theological Oration. Gregory tries to establish the point by quite a different set of arguments from those adopted in the former discourse, none of whose points are here repeated. In the other oration, forty-five, Gregory refers to the importance of the resurrection for the human race. He presents Christ as the new Adam who saved the human from the death and reunites again the man with God. This is a subject that is referred to the oration forty-one, too. In this paper, we will examine the teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus about the divine status of the Holy Spirit and his equality to the other two persons of the Triune God through theological and biblical images. Also, we will present how he connects his teaching for anthropology based on the Christology. In the end we will show how Gregory produced these orations for public festivals within the literarily ripe tradition of pagan festival rhetoric, but he gives to his orations theological content.

Gregory of Nazianzus had to confront with courage the heretical teaching about the divine nature of Holy Spirit. Through his works, he identifies The Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Triune God. One can see that the Bible clearly teaches that the Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit just as the Son, originates from the Father, is coeternal with the Father and illuminates the whole creation. The third Person of Trinity deserves to be worshipped as God and deifies people in their baptism. Gregory wonders: “For if He is not to be worshipped, how can He deify
me by Baptism? But if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is derived” (Oratio 31, 28). Gregory underlined the divinity of Holy Spirit and also explained the soteriological goal of this teaching, because: “If he has the same rank as I have, how can he make me God, or how can he join me with deity” (Oratio 31, 4).

Theologians have long recognized that the Cappadocian fathers are a valuable resource for contemporary reflection on the Holy Spirit. The modern use of their work, however, tends to reflect only a thin sampling of their many writings; it shows little awareness of their complicated historical situation; and it generally operates on the false assumption that Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa offer but three versions of the same theological project. This article provides a new comparative assessment of Cappadocian pneumatology in connection with larger Trinitarian concerns and with practical matters of spirituality, monasticism, and the role of divine grace in the Christian life. It highlights the distinctive character of each theologian's approach to the Holy Spirit by analyzing their relationships to prior fourth-century traditions, their respective uses of Origen, and their differing stances in the contemporary debates with the Pneumatomachians. It argues that Basil's work on the Spirit is less fully Trinitarian and ascetically weaker than that of the other two, that Gregory Nazianzen offers the most fully Trinitarian and methodologically insightful pneumatology of the three, and that the Holy Spirit plays only a minor role in Gregory of Nyssa's theological and ascetical system. In conclusion, it identifies three key areas in which the Cappadocians can still make a significant contribution to current work on the Holy Spirit.

Among the many practicalities and the all-too-worldly demands of lay and ordained ministry, Christian leadership is fundamentally theological in its source, substance, and ends. Drawing on the great pastoral theologians of the early church, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Augustine of Hippo, along with exemplary leaders in later Anglican and other traditions, this essay outlines the basic prìnciples of pastoral and lay leadership. Special attention is given to the relationship between theology and the many practicalities of leaders' work, the ministry of the word, the doctrine of the Trinity, the spintual or pastoral interpretation of Scnpture, and the importance of regular study for the work of Christian leadership.

The development of Christology has a rich history, and there are many fine works that cover this study. My interest is to develop a study of this doctrine through the early church. My intent is to provide an introduction into the most significant developments in Christology during this period. This task is primarily meant to be a historical account rather than a systematic account. Nonetheless, good historical construction invites one to delve into the rich primary documentary evidence. This summary will lean upon two kinds of documentary evidence—treatises and correspondence between churchmen. Where possible, I will cite dependable and authorized English translations of texts. Throughout this account, I will mention another significant kind of documentary evidence but only in passing. That kind of documentary evidence is made up of the the various declarations, definitions, and statements crafted by the body of catholic and Orthodox church leadership. These documents were the final authority concerning Christological developments. You will see why I have selected to pass by this evidence for the sake of this study when I come to my closing reflection on the history that I have constructed.

Perhaps during the course of this historical journey through the sources, I will uncover a neglected perspective on Christology or even an overlooked development which invites renewed appreciation. Suffice is to say, my goal is to present a historical summary that highlights the most crucial developments of Christology, developments that affect our thought on Christology today, whether we are familiar with all the details of the development and sources or not. I have chosen to organize my summary of the early church’s Christological development around the heresies that developed and the responses to them. Once again, you will see the purpose for this organization when I reflect on my findings.

This paper closes with a reflection that, rather than summarizing a summary, functions as a reflection on the conditioning of Christology in the early church. The reflection engages the methodology of my entire project, assessing where it lacks, because of my own sapiential shortcomings, and how it might be slanted, as a result of the private judgments I exercised. This closing exercise is for the sake of raising awareness. Every account of historical development is fundamentally an exercise in private judgement. Regardless of the historian’s sincerity and the equitability of his or her endeavor.

This reflection develops the process by which doctrinal clarity unfolded, and it makes a very specific claim about doctrinal development. The final authority of a doctrine has always rested on the catholicity of that doctrine. That doctrine has always been received by a consensus of pastor-theologians; in the early church, we would call these people the ecclesial leadership, and they were always bishops. However, consensus emerged first from the voice of a solitary figure that represented the body ecclesial politic, championed Orthodox doctrine, and chose not to be silent. This person functioned as a personal trainer, who conditioned the church-catholic to exercise sound Orthodoxy, and this person functioned as a nutritionist, who helped the church cut out of its diet unhealthy heresy.