When dealing with “the Trinity,” we often will note that there are different trinitarian models. Usually, we divide them into Eastern vs. Western, or Latin vs. Greek. Yet, there are a lot of Christological positions as well. These were defined during the same period as the Trinity was. I thought it might be helpful to compile a small list of the major branches of Christological categories. Sometimes, the best way to explain what Trinitarians believe about Jesus is by explaining what they have formally rejected concerning him. All of the categories below have been condemned by the orthodox churches as being heretical.
Psilanthropism: This phrase quite literally means “mere human,” combining these two words in Greek (and adding the suffix). This is a title for the Christological beliefs that Jesus was only a man, one nature, in his ministry.
Paulianists: This is used for the Christians who were said to follow Paul of Samosata, bishop in the mid 3rd century. His beliefs were that Jesus was only a human being with no preexistence.
Exaltation Christology: This is a term used by various scholars, notably Bart Ehrman, which is in reference to the idea that Jesus was a man who became divine at resurrection. He was “exalted” to a new nature.
Adoptionists: Adoptionism is the idea that Jesus was a man no different from any other (denying the virgin birth), who became divine in some sense at his baptism. He was “adopted” from among men as God’s son at baptism. The Ebionites were a very early 2nd century Christian group that held to this belief. It is argued that the Nazarenes, a contemporary early Jewish Christian group similar to the Ebionites, held to a similar Christology, but Jerome noted their distinction in that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth. There’s much debate on whether the Nazarenes were orthodox in their christology or not.
Dynamic Monarchianism: This is often lumped together with adoptionism in the literature with very little to no distinction made. However, the title “monarchian” generally refers to a category of theology proper, not Christology, as it refers specifically to the Father. The “monarchians” will be covered below. The “dynamic” aspect is generally in relation to how the Father works. This phrase seems to be generally used in reference to how Christians understand the relation of God to his word in John’s prologue (John 1:1-18). The dynamic monarchians are those who hold this word is an aspect or mode of the Father. They see the Father as more “dynamic” as opposed to something like divine simplicity. Marcellus of Ancyra is attributed this belief, though his views post resurrection of Christ become very much like dynamic monarchianism absorbed into monarchianism. If God has certain modes of being, his word, his wisdom, his Spirit, his glory, his breath, his power, these would make him “dynamic.” This bleeds over into Christology because of the relation of Christ to the dynamic aspect of the Father in John 1:14.
Arianism: This name comes from Arius, the 4th century presbyter in Alexandria who was deposed by Bishop Alexander for his teachings of Jesus being created by God, having a different nature than God, and for saying that we can become sons of God just as he is. Athanasius’ “Orations against the Arians” is one of the most complete works we have regarding the teachings of Arius, if he is quoting the Thalia accurately. Arianism is a christological position sometimes referred to as “subordinationism,” which is held by many prior to Arius. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century seems to hold to this view, according to the shorter manuscript family. Irenaeus of Lyons in the mid to late 2nd century is argued by some to hold to this position. Origen was declared to be the root of Arius’ teachings. However, this is improbable. Arius seems to have believed that Jesus preexisted as the first creation of God, who was like God but only sharing part of his nature. Jesus was not “fully divine” as God is, but he possesses part of the divinity of God in his preexistence. He also seems to have believed that Jesus was fully human in his earthly Incarnation, but this is not apparently clear. This belief is more affirmed by the “semi-arians,” or Eunomians, following the teachings formalized by Eunomius later in the 4th century. His writings were argued against by both Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea, “Contra Eunomia.” There are also what some have called “neo-arianism,” in reference to teachings like that of the Bible Students which the Jehovah’s Witnesses developed from, and variously said to be held by early Unitarians like Samuel Clark and John Biddle.
Monophysitism: Sometimes, it is also called Eutychianism. This is a Christological belief of Jesus having one (mono) nature (physis). This term has always been used in regards to the belief that the one nature of Christ in his Incarnation is divine. The phrase, to my knowledge, has never been used to refer to a one nature view of Christ being only man. However, it is generally used in antithesis to dual nature Christologies. Monophysitism is a heretical view by the church, which declares that Christ has two natures in their view.
Nestorianism: This is a dyophysite Christology. This is a form of Christology that holds to Jesus having two (dyo/di) natures (physis). Not all dyophysite christologies are heretical by orthodox standards, but this view is. Nestorius was opposed to the idea that Mary, a mere human woman, could be the theotokos (theo-God, tokos-bearer/born). He argued against the idea of Mary having the God of heaven and earth in her womb. He argued that Jesus must have received his divine nature only after the virgin birth. Nestorius argued that these two natures must belong to two persons in one body. Jesus, the human, Christ, the divine. Two persons, each with a respective nature, in one body. Orthodox christology argues for one person with two natures, and this person possesses two natures from the moment of conception and Incarnation. Nestorianism was debated in the councils of 431 in Ephesus and 451 AD in Chalcedon, along with Eutyches to a lesser extent.
Miaphysitism: This is very similar to monophysitism, but rather than just one nature, there is a mixed nature. This christology believes that the union of the human and the divine created a new nature when the logos became incarnate. They reject the idea of two distinct natures but hold to a union of both as a single nature.
Apollinarism: Or also, “Apollinarianism.” This is a form of monophysite belief which holds to the idea that Jesus lacked a human mind but possessed a human body and a divine mind. This is usually referred to as the “God in a bod” belief, which is essentially the view that Jesus had a divine nature (one nature only, monophysite) in a human body. This belief was contested during the mid 4th century during the Arian controversies. This christological belief has become more popular recently due to the work of William Lane Craig, who proposes “neo-Apollinarianism,” which I see little to no difference between what Apollinaris originally believed himself.
Docetism: This is a particular form of Gnosticism, and probably the earliest christology to arise that was unorthodox from the perspective of the apostles. This view has been said to stem from the gnostic teachings of Cerinthius, and John is writing against his views in his first epistle, possibly his other epistles, and also in his gospel account. Irenaeus writes about and against Cerinthius and speaks of supposed extrabiblical accounts of John speaking against him. This is the Christological view that Jesus was essentially a ghost. He did not truly have a human body and could not experience suffering. The gnostics had a very degraded view of the physical material reality as fallen, unlike God, and a prison by the demiurge. Jesus was an ascended being from heaven, above the demiurge, and only appeared as man, yet did not suffer or die. The very word “docetic” comes from the Greek word “to appear.” This is the christological view that is consistent only among the gnostic gospels.
Monarchianism: This term is generally a blanket term for the Father, who is head of the “monarchy.” Monarchianism is generally regarded as the belief that Jesus is the Father, whether a mode of the Father being projected on earth, an Incarnation of the Father, or in some other way, non-distinct from the Father.
Sabellian Modalism: This is a theology proper, christological, pneumatological, and triadological position. Sabellius believed that the Father becomes the Son, who becomes the Holy Spirit, each existing as a mode of the one God and all ultimately the same. It is often likened to personae, or the wearing of different masks, but behind is one person. Origen was rumoured to also be the inspiration behind Sabellius, but this is also not true. This is a kind of monarchianism.
Patripassianism: Famously coined by Tertullian, it was a mocking insult to those who believed the Father and Son to be the same person. The title comes from the words, “Father suffering.” The idea that if the Son is the Father, then the impassible Father suffered upon the cross. This is a form of Monarchianism.
Monoenergism: The doctrine that Christ only had one engery. Sergius, the first of Constantinople, posited this belief. Though he was a dyophysite, he argued that the one person with two natures only had one energy. This was rejected in the 7th century. This developed into his later views on monothelitism.
Monothelitism: The doctrine of Christ having one will. Orthodoxy holds to dyothelitism, that Christ has a human and divine will. Monothelitism was prominently promoted by Sergius of Constantinople. This doctrine was rejected in the 7th century.
Above are all the heterodox views of Christology according to the ecumenical councils. These are the various views of Christ in his ministry or in his incarnation. Lastly, we will lay out the “orthodox” view of Christology that is professed by most Christians today and is the result of the ecumenical councils and creeds against the above views.
Hypostatic Union: This is a dyophysite position that holds that Jesus has two distinct natures, human and divine, not mixed together, two wills, two energies, but one person.