The Patristic Period: Part One

The Chess Analogy

Grandmasters spend much time behind the chessboard, and aspiring grandmasters spend much time behind the board, staring over the backs of those who have reached the coveted rank. Likewise, “the onlooker [of any chess game] is forced to survey the chessboard and make an assessment of what has happened, who is winning, whose turn is next, and who has the advantage. The onlooker observes the game in progress, and, using her knowledge of the game, evaluates the strategies in play to appreciate what is happening.”¹ Historical theology is much the same as this game of chess: “Christians of the present and future, once they start their journey in the Christian life, either as individuals or in local churches, are put in the position of the onlooker. Christians before them are playing or have played many chess games with the Christian tradition.”²

Historical theology is concerned with the development of doctrine throughout history. Looking back on such developments contains wise information for the Christian life and playing the game. For instance, “the onlooker is helped if she has the opportunity not only to study and learn in community the rules of the game that comes through the study of the Bible [Biblical theology is important, too], but also to learn from and observe other Christians, nearby and in previous passages, how they have done the same.”³ Contemporary study and truths of the past are more valuable together than either of the two alone.

Furthermore, returning to the grandmaster chess analogy, Hebrews 11 provides an edifying account of the saints who have already finished the race. Just as an onlooker watches grandmasters in preparing for the rank herself, Christians look to the saints, “imitat[ing them] as [they] imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).⁴ Biblical theology, partly composed of the study of the saints in the Bible, and historical theology go hand in hand. While Scripture is the church’s sole authority, historical study is its friend, not its counterpart.

The Practice of Historical Theology

The Puritan Thomas Watson, regarding Samson of the Old Testament judges, says, “It is a wonder that any honey should come out of this lion.”⁵ How could Samson, as depraved and broken as he was, bring the pillars down to crush the Philistines? Likewise, how can the history of theology, as faulty and obscure as it can be, bring about any changes for the good? Truly, “When one reviews the work of historical theology in history, with all its flaws and faults that humans bring to bear in every era, it is a marvel that any honey has been found. Yet, historical theology has shaped historical movements for good.”⁶ For example, despite the frailty and sin of humans, humans throughout history and Historical theology have advanced in movements such as the Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his successor Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) sought to understand the erroneous ways of the Catholic Church and where they erred in history, culminating in a goal of “emphas[ing] a distinction between a history of the church and a history of the state, focusing almost solely on the former.”⁷ In short, refuting the Catholic church’s various erroneous doctrines involved “us[ing] historical theology to recover the Christian tradition.”⁸

How exactly do historical theologians separate the good from the bad, for the benefit of the church? Jason G. Duesing provides

a tangible blueprint as an outline for future and ongoing construction: 1. Historical theology for the church upholds the primacy of the Bible but recognizes the value of tradition and history… 2. Historical theology for the church follows the two Greatest Commandments, as it is for the church catholic and church local… 3. Historical theology for the church is done as a means to the end of fulfilling the Great Commission and glorifying God… 4. Historical theology for the church is academic and edifying as it functions as friend to the work of systematic theology, biblical theology, and applied theology… 5. Historical theology for the church as an academic endeavor is done as a servant of the church, not as a master.

These five considerations of the historical theologian keep him grounded in humility, the Word of God, and service-focused ministry for the church.

The Chalcedonian Adverbs

While the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD claimed several critical Christological truths such as, “a true incarnation, the precise distinction between nature and person, the God-Man as a result of the incarnation, the duality of the natures, the unity of the person, the whole work of Christ is to be attributed to His person and neither nature exclusively, and the enhypostasia,”⁹ it made a profound declaration through four simple phrases. “the Definition of Chalcedon, safeguard[ed] orthodox Christology from four errors—change, confusion, separation, and division—with the former two responding to Eutychianism and the latter two responding to Nestorianism.”¹⁰

Without Change or Confusion

In addition to Eutychianism, “the first two adverbs [also] addressed… Apollinarianism… [Both are] extreme forms of Alexandrine Christology. To destroy or diminish one or both of the natures was out of bounds.”¹¹ This Western group, “the Alexandrines, while emphasizing Christ’s person, risked confusing or changing his natures,” and thus the Definition of Chalcedon determined to simultaneously emphasize the unity of His Person and the integrity of His natures.¹²

Without Division or Separation

Likewise, Nestorianism was the radical form of Antiochene Christology, a position that emphasized the distinction in natures to such an extent that Christ was divided or separated into two persons—the divine logos and the incarnate Son of Mary.¹³ Therefore, the Definition reiterated that “the natures were not merely connected to one another but were truly united to the one person of the Son. Chalcedon ensured that the eternal Son of God was the single subject of all the actions, and experiences of Jesus Christ.”¹⁴

Altogether, these four adverbs, which declare Christ as a unified Person with two natures, sum up the Chalcedonian Faith, placing “parameters on Christological language” for all subsequent Christological discussions, even to this day.¹⁵ Therefore, when Christians speak of Christ, it would be wise to remain with the tradition that so carefully evaluates Christ’s ontology in light of the inspired Word of God.

Prosopological and Partitive Exegesis and the Trinity

On the one hand, Prosopological, or prosopographic, exegesis, focuses “on the particular person or character (Greek prosopon) who is speaking or being spoken of in Old Testament texts.”¹⁶ On the other hand, Partitive exegesis entails “carefully discerning whether or not a given biblical text is speaking of the Son qua divine (as God) or qua human (as human), [which] enabled the pro-Nicene theologians to account for passages that seem to subordinate the Son to the Father, without diminishing the Son’s status as ‘true God.’”¹⁷ In short, each of the two are theological and exegetical practices that seek to understand how God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, speaks of Himself in the written Word.

In early church history, these two exegetical methods were foundational for Trinitarian and Christological formation. Prosopological exegesis, for example, demonstrated the Father and Son’s relationship in passages such as Psalm 110 through “utterances of the divine persons.”¹⁸ Likewise, partitive exegesis, when interpreting passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:8 explains that “Jesus Christ is to be understood to be God’s Son, both equal to the Father in the form of God in which he is, and less than the Father by the form of the servant which he took.”¹⁹ This language of Christ and a fundamental distinction between the two elements of His ontology—God and servant—gave way to more nuanced positions of Christ’s two-natures Christology in the fifth century and how Christians speak about him.²⁰

Bibliography

Duesing, Jason G., and Nathan A. Finn, eds. Historical Theology for the Church. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021.

Lancour, Logan. “The Communicatio Idiomatum: Preserving the Unity of Christ and the Integrity of His Two Natures,” a paper submitted for HT 3200 Theology II, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, March 2025.

———. “The First Four Ecumenical Councils and the Athanasian Creed,” a paper submitted for HT 3100 History of Christianity, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, December 2023.

Footnotes

1. Jason G. Duesing, introduction to Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 4. ↩

2. Ibid., 5. ↩

3. Ibid. ↩

4. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

5. Duesing, 6. ↩

6. Ibid. ↩

7. Ibid., 7. ↩

8. Duesing, 7. ↩

9. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, The History of Creeds (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 30-33, qtd. in Logan Lancour, “The First Four Ecumenical Councils and the Athanasian Creed,” a paper submitted for HT 3100 History of Christianity, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, December 2023. ↩

10. Schaff, 31, qtd. in Logan Lancour, “The Communicatio Idiomatum: Preserving the Unity of Christ and the Integrity of His Two Natures,” a paper submitted for HT 3200 Theology II, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, March 2025. ↩

11. Steven A. McKinion, “Jesus Christ,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 43. ↩

12. Logan Lancour, “The Communicatio Idiomatum: Preserving the Unity of Christ and the Integrity of His Two Natures.” ↩

13. Ibid. ↩

14. McKinion, 43. ↩

15. McKinion, 42-43. ↩

16. R. Lucas Stamps, “The Trinity,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 62. ↩

17. Ibid., 64. ↩

18. Ibid., 63. ↩

19. Augustine, De Trinitate 2.2, qtd. in Stamps, 65. ↩

20. Stamps, 65, and Logan Lancour, “The Communicatio Idiomatum: Preserving the Unity of Christ and the Integrity of His Two Natures.” ↩