Heresy is the New Orthodoxy II: Apollinarianism Abounding

Or What Did Jesus Know and How Did He Know It

A Dubious Test of Faith

In the previous post (click here), I noted that in on-line interactions with Young Earth Creationists (YECists) it is never long before the YECist questions my faith, often in a way that demonizes me, or on more than one occasion by suggesting that I am really an atheist in disguise (which for YECists amounts to pretty much the same thing). In their judgement, I am either deceived by the devil or a deceiver in league with the devil. There does not seem to be an available third option. Yet, what truly intrigues me is that these condemnations usually occur when I have asserted something in accord with orthodox Christian doctrine. Ironically, the counterclaim that YECists offer as a corrective rebuke to my orthodox asssertion is usually a blatantly heterodox or heretical statement.

Hybrid Jesus!

The most frequent heretical assertion that I encounter in these exchanges is the assertion that Jesus was omnipotent during his earthly ministry. This assertion is similar to the Christological heresy known as Apollinarianism (or Apollinarism). Apollinaris of Laodicaea voiced his theory in the fourth century as he attempted to defend Jesus fully divinity against the Arian theory. It was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD because it undermined the Nicene affirmation that Jesus was fully human.

Admittedly, the frequency of this assertion may be directly related to the points or questions that I raise when pushing back against YEC. For, in accord with North American Fundamentalism, YECists almost invariably hold to a view of inspiration that insists that the Christian Scriptures are inerrant with respect to every fact mentioned and where the Bible is silent “facts” are simply read into the gaps (i.e. Dinosaurs and humans co-existed).

This view is sometimes taken to the point where the Bible is treated as something akin to a comprehensive encyclopedia. Perhaps, it is this approach to the Bible which influenced our use of “Bible” in popular parlance to suggest comprehensiveness i.e. The Beer Bible, The Sex Bible, The Baker’s Bible, etc. Yet, the term Bible simply refers to a collection of writings or books. Because this version of the inerrantist view of Scripture is at the heart of YECism, I often raise questions about this hermeneutic and attempt to argue this point using Scripture itself. So, it is likely my pattern of argumentation that prompts the assertion that during his earthly ministry Jesus was omniscient.

The Word of God and the Word of God

While I cannot say for certain, it seems likely that this problematic view of the Christian Scriptures which glosses over the historical situation of the original authors carries over into their Christology rather than the other way around. In others words, in contrast to Apollinates, YECists are defending the full divinity of the Christian Scriptures against real and perceived threats that dismiss these writings as merely human in origin. For the defense of the Christian Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God is the rallying cry of the YECist and, in my opinion, the reason why many American Evangelicals feel compelled to defend people like Ken Ham and adopt his teaching and method. He is perceived as bravely defending the Bible in the face of an increasingly secular and anti-Christian culture.

Now, for an example of what I have described above, in the recent Twitter exchange that motivated me to write this series of posts, the discussion went as follows. When I suggest that we need to take the historical context of the biblical authors into account when reading Scripture and that this means taking seriously what the authors did and did not know, I am forcefully reminded that the Bible is inspired by God.

YECist: @panth_ian @CreationMuseum Gen 1, like the entire #Bible, was inspired by #God. #BiblicalTruth #SelfProving

Me: @YECist @CreationMuseum inspired never meant that Bible is an encyclopedia for all knowledge even Jesus said his knowledge was limited

YECist: @panth_ian @CreationMuseum Jesus’ [sic] knowledge was never limited

Me: @YECist @CreationMuseum You may want to read Matt 24:36 & Mk 13:32 Jesus was fully human & knew only what the Father gave him

YECist: @panth_ian @CreationMuseum You are attempting to take those verses out of context and interpret them with our limited understanding!

Now, wait a minute. I thought he was supposed to be the literalist. Jesus, literally says, I don’t know.

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36, ESV) For the context, go to

Yet, I am charged with taking the verse out of context. However, contrary to the YECists interpretive guidance the context does not seem to suggest that Jesus really means, “I know but I don’t want to tell you.” Or “Now, kids. I know but you’re just not ready to be trusted with that yet.” No, Jesus is recorded as saying, “No one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

The simple point that I was trying to make was that contrary to the YECists assumptions about Scripture as a nearly comprehensive encyclopedia of knowlege, the human authors are shaped and limited by their historical situation. If the Son limits himself in becoming a historically existing individual, then it should not be a controversial claim to admit that Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, etc. were likewise limited in their understanding of things that are not essential to the good news of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus himself said that there is something he, the Son, does not know at least for the present time. Therefore, it is reasonable to concluded that Jesus’s knowledge was limited by at least this one piece of information. Yet, as Jesus was fully human and lived at a particular time and in a particular place, it is orthodox Christian doctrine that the Son emptied himself. As an existing individual, Jesus is clearly not omnipresent, for instance.

So What Did Jesus Know and How Did He Know It?

In my opinion, it would seem that for the most part Jesus acquired knowledge and wisdom in the mundane and ordinary ways. That is, he learned carpentry from Joseph and likely banged his thumb with his hammer on occasion. He learned to speak and read in his community. He knew Aramaic but not English or Mandarin. He would be as confused as I was watching American Football for the first time. If he was aware of astronomy at all, he would have insisted that there are only five planets (aka travelling stars). He would be ignorant of DNA and molecules. The list of what he did not know could be expanded indefinitely.

Yet, what about those times when the gospel writers record Jesus clearly displaying access to knowledge that is extraordinary. I would suggest that for all extraordinary knowledge Jesus, the obedient Son, the faithful servant, the Good King,  who humbly and humanly submits to the the Father is wholly dependent on the Father. As Jesus himself states quite clearly to his disciples, the Father has not granted him to know all things during his earthly ministry. Indeed, good Trinitarian theology would suggest that it is the nature of the Son to be always and eternally dependent on the Father and to receive everything from the Father by the Holy Spirit.

How Defending Inerrancy Can Make Jesus Lose His Mind

So, like the fourth century Bishop of Laodicaea in Syria, Apollinaris*, in their eagerness to defend the full divinity of the Bible and subsequently of Christ, YECists often do so at the expense of the equally important affirmation that Christ Jesus is also fully human. To put it simply, while their hearts are in the right place, they have lost their minds and quite literally the human rational mind of Jesus. For as the Online Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent so succinctly states, Apollonarianism is

A Christological theory, according to which Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos taking the place of this last. (New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia Online, last accessed March 1, 2017)

To insist unthinkingly as many YECists adamantly do that “Jesus’ [sic] knowledge was never limited” is not a defense of Christian orthodoxy but a resurgence of an early Christological heresy. Apollanaris’s proposed solution was explicitly and definitively rejected at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Next Time: Modalism à la Mode

IWP March 02, 2017 — The First Thursday of Lent

Related Posts: Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis Posts

*Apollinaris was the Bishop of Laodicaea. He died in 390 AD. Now, it ought to be said that while Apollinaris gets a heresy named after him he was a defender of Christ’s divinity against the arguments of those like Arius of Alexandria who famously argued that the Son belonged on the created side of the Creator/creation divide. Nevertheless, in defending the full divinity of Jesus, the Son of God, Apollinaris argued that the man Jesus had the body and soul of a man but the mind of God.

7 thoughts on “Heresy is the New Orthodoxy II: Apollinarianism Abounding

  1. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. – John 5:39 KJV

    Who led Moses and the COI? Who spokr of Orion and the Seven Sisters? Who’s making a vapid argument?


    1. David,

      Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

      As to the bible quote, I am not denying Christ or that eternal life only comes through Him. What I am arguing is that one’s faith in Christ ought not to be questioned one’s adherence to or rejection of a belief in YEC or a particular interpretation of Genesis 1.

      In response to your second question, the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob led Israel. Moreover, he did not abandon them despite their disobedience including making an idol while Moses was on Sinai. So, again, I find the suggestion made by both implicitly and explicitly by many YECists and which your use of quote from John seems to imply that somehow my salvation is at stake in this issue completely out of step with the character of the Creator God. Remember, He also said, “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression…” as the rest of this verse implies and as Jesus himself indicated, the Lord will judge me. YECists ought to be slower to anger and quicker to forgive, I think.

      In response to your third question, Orion’s Belt and the Seven Sisters (aka the Pleiades located in the constellation Taurus) are visible to the naked eye. In this reference, you actually help make my point, when the Creator God through the prophets makes an astronomical (or, better, an astrological), He does so in accordance with the knowledge of the day. Even if one takes a divine dictation approach to prophetic utterances (which I do not), then it is clear that the omniscient God accommodates his message to fit the knowledge, language, and symbolism of the historical period.

      I have no doubt that the creator knew of black holes and of the planets that surround the distance suns which we also call stars but he does not mention them. Why? Because it is irrelevant to his message and his purposes.

      If you are implying that it was the son of God that led them in the wilderness then we have another theological problem regarding theophanies which is addressed by Augustine in On The Trinity and again I am only stating that in the incarnation the Jesus was not omniscient not that the Son is eternally omniscient. Grace and anc peace to you.


  2. I think you are deceived, all right–but about much, much more than young-earth or old-earth creationism… The whole Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast is where the trouble is. Of course, Believing, you will discount what I say here. That’s ok. Unlike your Belief, my dissent and skepticism does not require you to question as I do.


    1. Peter,

      Thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog.

      From what you have written, I am assuming that you are a YECist.

      Deceived about what and by whom?

      Can you be more specific? Clearly, you disagree with me about how to interpret Genesis 1. But where else do you see deception at play? And does disagreement over interpretation (and unspecified “much more”) necessarily imply deception?

      By suggesting that I am deceived, you seem to be demonstrating one of my observations in this series of posts. YECists leap to questioning the faith of fellow Christians whenever someone questions or rejects belief in a Young Earth as I do and have always done. At least, when you say that I am “deceived”, then that to me is not far from saying that I am not a Christian. That I have exchanged the truth for a lie.

      In this way, you seem to have made belief in YEC a test of orthodoxy and an essential doctrine. Whereas, historically, there has been disagreement over the age of the earth and the cosmos ranging from YEC to eternal yet created. The essential doctrine has been that God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator God and that there is no other. In making the age of the earth a test of orthodoxy, YECists have raised a secondary and debatable issue to a status of an essential dogma. I find this problematic.

      I would like to respond to your final sentence but I am not sure what you mean. Yet, it seems that you are implying that whereas you don’t require others to believe what you believe you see me as one who insists that others believe as I believe.

      If I have understood this last sentence correctly, then I would say that you have misunderstood me. (Yet, I am not sure what you are dissenting from or where your skepticism comes into play — unless it is toward my arguments?) If you read the posts (and other posts on this blog) carefully, my position is clear. If someone is convinced for various reasons that the earth is only a few thousand years old, even though I think they are wrong, this belief is in itself not inconsistent with the Christian faith. It is only when it becomes a test of orthodoxy and of the legitimacy of one’s salvation or an individual’s standing in the community of faith that it begins to function as a heresy.

      In other words, what you seem to be suggesting about me is precisely what I find troubling about my interactions with YECists.
      Moreover, as I noted above, you seem to be doing the very thing you accuse me of and then congratulations yourself for being open-minded.

      Again, thank you for taking the time to write a comment. But why can’t I simply be “wrong”? Why must I be “deceived”? If I am wrong, then you can provide an argument for your position and we can have a conversation. Yet, you simply described me as deceived, provided no counter-argument and assumed that I would discount what you say but that’s not how minds are changed, is it?

      Grace to you and peace,
      IWP 03/18/17


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s