1. Creed 14 Born and not created. Equal with the Father in the one essence, by Him all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and of the virgin Mary and became man

2. Why did the Son of God become man? “for us men and for our salvation”: 1.To reconcile us to His Father 2.So that we might know God’s love 3.To be our model of holiness “ I am the way the truth and the light”, “love one another as I have loved you” 4.To make us “partakers of divine nature”.

3. Heresies against incarnation Although there are many heresies, only few were strong enough to call for an ecumenical council: 1.Arian Heresy – Council of Nicaea 2.Apollinarian Heresy- Council of Constantinople 3.Nestorian Heresy- Council of Ephesus Eutychian Heresy- Council of Chalcedon.

4. Heresies against incarnation 1.The first heresies denied the true humanity. (Gnostic heresies, who considered the material world to be evil ) 2.In the third century, the church in a council in Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature and not by adoption. 3.In the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 (318 bishops) confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father” and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the son of God “came from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father

5. Heresies against incarnation 4.Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the Divine Word had replaced the Human soul or spirit. Apollinarius made this error when trying to explain how the person of the Son can not take a human nature without a human person (in the rational human soul). Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul. But that human nature belonged to the divine person of the Son of God. The Son of God therefore communicates to His humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. (Example of the cup)

6. Heresies against incarnation This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of His existence in space and time. This is why when the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man” and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.

7. Heresies against incarnation But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. That apply especially to the immediate and intimate knowledge of His Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

8. Heresies against incarnation By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not know in this area “but of that day and hour, no one knows not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son but only the Father” Mark 13:32, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal “it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” Acts 1:7.

9. Heresies against incarnation 5.The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son, in an “apparent union” and not “hypostatic union”. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Cyril the pillar of faith) at the third ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431 confessed “that the Word, uniting to Himself in His person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.” Christ humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.

10. Heresies against incarnation For this reason the council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that St. Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: “Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh” from the minutes of the council

11. Heresies against incarnation 6.The Monophysite (one-Nature) heresy of Eutychus affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the Son of God assumed it. In the council of Chalcedon 451, our Patriarch, St Deoscorus, was excommunicated by, and excommunicated the bishops assembled against him in Chalcedon, even before offering a defense. Later was found that the council excommunicated him for administrative but not dogmatic errors.

12. Heresies against incarnation The concern of the Coptic church was to defend the Faith against the Nestorian heresy ( the Nestorian heresies at the time was coming back ). The emphasis was on the union, st. Cyril used “one nature” to mean one person. The concern of the Chalcedonies, was to defend the faith against the Eutychian heresy, their emphasis was on the reality of the union of the two natures (that there are two natures in union). Not allowing for understanding of one another leading to the schism.

13. Heresies against incarnation The use of “One Nature” in the writings of the Church Fathers: – St. Athanasius: “ we do not say that the Only Son that has two natures, one we worship, and another we do not worship, but One incarnated Nature of God the word”. St Athanasius here defends against the Nestorian heresy even before it started. – St. Cyril used St. Athanasius terminology to emphasize the unity.

14. The Schism of 451 Resulted in 2 groups of “Church families” : 1.The non-Chalcedonian family : The Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic orthodox, Syrian orthodox, Armenian orthodox, Ethiopian orthodox, Indian Orthodox (and recently the Eritrean orthodox). 2.The Chalcedonians: those include the church of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox family like: Greek orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Serbian, Romanian, etc.

15. Efforts to Reconcile – Ecumenical Dialogues During the last century, especially the second half, the dialogue between the orthodox churches had resumed around the common heritage of faith regarding the Nature of Christ. After 15 centuries of separation, the meetings came to find a common grounds in St. Cyril formula of Faith. Mia physis (one hypostasis) tou theou Logou sesarkomeni = one incarnated nature (person)of God the Word. And on the term Theotokos for St Mary

16. Efforts to Reconcile – Ecumenical Dialogues Geneva 9/23-28/1990 1.Both families anathematized the heresy of Eutychus 2.Both families anathematized the crypto-nestorianism. It is not enough to say that Christ has the same essence with His Father and with us. By nature God, and by nature man. But we must also confirm that the Word, who is naturally God became naturally man. 3.Both families agreed that the hypostasis of the Son became “composite” (synthetos hypostasis) by uniting his created humanity (with its human characteristics) making it his own, with the uncreated divinity (with its divine characteristics)

17. Efforts to Reconcile – Ecumenical Dialogues Geneva 9/23-28/1990 4.Both families agreed that the two natures with their distinct characters were united hypostatically and naturally without mixing, without confusion, without alteration, and without separation. We can not distinguish them as two natures except only in mind. 5.Both families agreed that the person that wills and acts is the one person/hypostasis of the incarnated Word.

18. Efforts to Reconcile – Ecumenical Dialogues Geneva 9/23-28/1990 6.Each family agree that the other family can continue to use their terminology, provided they reject both heresies of Eutychus and Nestor. 7.Both families agreed to reject the interpretation of the councils that does not agree completely with the third ecumenical council and the letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch. 8.Both families accept the first three ecumenical councils. The eastern Orthodox consider the previous items from 1-7 as part of the teachings of the last 4 councils. The Oriental orthodox family responded positively. Regarding the 7 th council and its teaching regarding veneration of icons, the Oriental family sees an agreement with its own practices.

19. Efforts to Reconcile – Ecumenical Dialogues Geneva 9/23-28/1990 9.Both families have kept faithfully and always the same authentic orthodox faith, although they used deferent Christological terminology 10.Both families agreed that the past judgments and excommunications leading to our division must be removed, so that the last obstacle to our reunion might be lifted up. these articles were signed by 32 of representatives from orthodox churches from allover the world