THE PROMISE AND PROGRESS OF SALVATION IN CHRIST

ABSTRACT: Dispensationalism or covenant theology? From the beginning of the

church, Christians have wrestled over how best to relate the covenants. In recent
generations, two broad traditions have governed the church’s covenantal thinking.
In seeking to “put the covenants together” in Christian theology, we need to do
justice to the plurality of God’s covenants, each of which reaches its fulfillment in
Christ; posit an implicit creation covenant as foundational to future covenants; and
seriously account for the newness of God’s new-covenant people. From creation to
the cross, God accomplishes his redemptive plan covenant by covenant,
progressively revealing the greater new covenant now ratified in Christ.
For our ongoing series of feature articles for pastors and Christian leaders,
we asked Stephen J. Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), professor
of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to explore how
Christians might best relate Scripture’s covenants.
All Christians agree that covenants are essential to the Bible’s redemptive story
centered in our Lord Jesus Christ, but we continue to disagree on the relationships
between the covenants. This is not a new debate. In the early church, the apostles
wrestled with the implications of Christ’s new-covenant work. In fact, it’s difficult
to appreciate many of the early church’s struggles apart from viewing them as
covenantal debates. For example, the reason for the Jerusalem Council was due to
covenantal disputes (Acts 15), especially regarding Jew-Gentile relations (Acts 10–
11; Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:1–13) and theological differences with the Judaizers
(Galatians 3–4).
Although Christians today share a basic agreement that the Bible’s story moves
from Adam to Abraham to Sinai to Christ, we still disagree on how to put together
the covenants.1 These differences affect other key theological issues, such as the
newness of what Christ has achieved, how the Decalogue and the Sabbath laws
apply to the church, and how Old Testament promises are now fulfilled in Christ
and the church (a question related to the larger Israel-church relationship). When
these differences surface, we discover that there are still significant disagreements
regarding how the covenants are put together.
This article addresses the topic of how to put the covenants together, and it does so
by answering three questions: (1) Why do we disagree? (2) How do we resolve our
differences? (3) How might we put the covenants together in a way that least
distorts the data and emphases of Scripture?
1|Page
Why Do We Disagree?
Why do those of us who affirm Scripture’s full authority disagree on significant
truths? The answer is complicated and multifaceted. For starters, theological views
are not simply tied to one or two texts. Instead, views involve discussions of how
texts are interpreted in their context, interrelated with other texts, and read in terms
of the entirety of Scripture.
Furthermore, views are tied to historical theology and tradition. We don’t approach
Scripture with a blank slate; we are informed by tradition and a theological
heritage, which affects how we draw theological conclusions. Within evangelical
theology, two broad traditions often govern our thinking about the covenants:
dispensationalism and covenant theology.
Dispensationalism began in nineteenth-century England and has undergone various
revisions. However, what is unique to all its forms is the Israel-church distinction,
dependent on a particular understanding of the covenants. For dispensationalists,
Israel refers to an ethnic, national people, and the church is never the transformed
eschatological Israel in God’s plan. Gentile salvation is not part of the fulfillment
of promises made to national Israel and now realized in the church. Instead, God
has promised national Israel, first in the Abrahamic covenant and then reaffirmed
by the prophets, the possession of the promised land under Christ’s rule, which still
awaits its fulfillment in the premillennial return of Christ and the eternal state.
The church, then, is distinctively new in God’s plan and ontologically different
from Israel. Although the church is presently comprised of believing Jews and
Gentiles, she is receiving only the spiritual blessings that were promised to Israel.
In the future, Christ will rule over redeemed nations, not the church in her present
form. The church will not receive all of God’s promises equally, fully, and forever
in Christ. Instead, believing Jews and Gentiles, who now constitute the church, will
join the redeemed of the nation of Israel, along with Gentile nations, to live under
Christ’s rule according to their respective national identities and the specific
promises given to each. Dispensationalism also teaches that the church is
constituted as a regenerate community, which entails that the sign of baptism is to
be applied only to those who profess faith in Christ.

2|Page
Covenant theology formally began in the Reformation and post-Reformation era,
and it is best represented by the Westminster Confession of Faith and other
Reformed confessions. It organizes God’s plan in history by God’s covenantal
dealings with humans. Although covenant theology is not monolithic, those who
hold to it typically argue for three covenants: the intra-trinitarian covenant of
redemption; the temporal covenant of works made with Adam on humanity’s
behalf, which, tragically, he broke, resulting in sin and death; and the covenant of
grace made in Christ for the salvation of God’s people, which has unfolded over
time through different covenant administrations.
Although covenant theology recognizes the plurality of the covenants, it subsumes
all post-fall covenants under the overarching category of the covenant of grace. As
a result, the Israel-church relationship is viewed in terms of continuity — that is,
the two by nature are essentially the same, yet administered differently. For this
reason, Israel and the church are constituted as a mixed people (elect and non-
elect), and their respective covenant signs (circumcision and baptism) signify the
same spiritual reality — hence why baptism may be applied to infants in the
church.
Given that we tend to read Scripture in light of our theological traditions, it’s not
surprising that people disagree on the covenants. How, then, do we resolve our
differences?
How Do We Resolve Our Differences?
Without sounding naive, we resolve our differences by returning to Scripture. Yes,
resolution of our differences is not an easy task; it will require us to examine our
views anew. But given sola Scriptura, Scripture must always be able to confirm or
correct our traditions. Thus, the resolution to covenantal disagreements is this: Is
our putting together of the covenants true to Scripture’s own presentation of the
covenants from creation to Christ? This raises some hermeneutical questions,
especially what it means to speak of Scripture’s own presentation, or its own terms.
My brief answer is to note three truths about what Scripture is on its own terms, all
of which are important in properly putting together the covenants.
First, Scripture is God’s word, written by human authors and unfolding God’s
eternal plan centered in Christ (2 Timothy 3:15–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21; Luke 24:25–
27; Hebrews 1:1–3). Despite Scripture’s diverse content, it displays an overall
unity and coherence precisely because it is God’s word written. Furthermore, since
Scripture is God’s word given through human authors, we cannot know what God
3|Page
is saying to us apart from the writing(s) and intention of the human authors. And
given that God has spoken through multiple authors over time, this requires a
careful intertextual and canonical reading to understand God’s purposes and plan.
Scripture does not come to us all at once. As God’s plan unfolds, more revelation is
given — and later revelation, building on the earlier, results in more understanding
as we discover how the parts fit with the whole. The best view of the covenants
will explain how all the covenants are organically related to each other, and how
each covenant prophetically points forward to Christ and the new covenant.

Second, building on the first point, Scripture is not only God’s word written over
time, but the unfolding of revelation is largely demarcated by the progressive
unfolding of the covenants. To understand the canon, then, we must carefully trace
out God’s unfolding plan as unveiled through the covenants. Our exegesis of entire
books must put together the canon in terms of its redemptive-historical unfolding,
and the best view of the covenants will account for the unfolding nature of God’s
plan through the covenants, starting in creation and culminating in Christ and the
new covenant.
Third, given progressive revelation, Scripture and the covenants must be put
together according to three unfolding contexts. The first context is the immediate
context of any book. The second context locates the book in God’s unfolding plan,
because texts are embedded in the larger context of what precedes them. The third
context is the canonical context. By locating texts (and covenants) in God’s
unfolding plan, we discover intertextual links between earlier and later revelation.
As later authors refer to earlier texts (and covenants), they build on them, both in
terms of greater understanding and by identifying typological relationships —
God-given patterns between earlier and later persons, events, and institutions.
These patterns are a crucial way God unfolds his plan through the covenants to
reach its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. Theological conclusions, then,
including covenantal formulation, are made in light of the canon. The best view of
the covenants will account for how each covenant contributes to God’s plan,
starting in creation and reaching its fulfillment in Christ.
Is There a ‘Better’ Way?
To seek a “better” way is not to question the orthodoxy of alternative views.
Despite our differences, we agree much more than we disagree, especially
regarding the central truths of Christian theology. Instead, to speak of a “better”
4|Page
way is to assert that the two dominant traditions are not quite right in putting
together the covenants, which results in various theological differences among us.
In this article, I cannot defend my claim in detail.2 Instead, I offer just three
reasons why we need a better account for Scripture’s own presentation of the
covenants.
Plural Covenants Fulfilled in Christ
First, as covenant theology claims, the covenants are the central way God has
unfolded his redemptive plan. But instead of dividing history into two historical
covenants — the covenant of works (a conditional “law” covenant) and the
covenant of grace (an unconditional “gospel” covenant) — and then subsuming all
the post-fall covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new) under the
larger category of the covenant of grace, Scripture depicts God’s plan and promises
as progressively revealed and accomplished through a plurality of covenants
(Ephesians 2:12), each of which reaches its fulfillment in Christ and the new
covenant. This formulation better accounts for how each biblical covenant
contributes to God’s unified plan without subsuming all the covenants under one
covenant. It also explains better how all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ
(Hebrews 1:1–3; Ephesians 1:9–10) and applied to the church, along with
emphasizing the greater newness of the new covenant.
“God’s plan and promises are progressively revealed and accomplished through a
plurality of covenants.”
This formulation is better because it explains the covenants first in biblical rather
than theological categories, consistent with Scripture’s presentation of the
covenants. After all, there is no specific textual warrant for the covenant of grace;
it is more of a theological category. Theological categories are fine, but they must
be true to Scripture. By contrast, there is much biblical warrant for God’s plan
unveiled through plural covenants (see, for example, Ephesians 2:12; Romans 9:4).
No doubt, covenant theology’s bicovenantal structure grounds the theological
categories of “law” and “gospel,” and it highlights well the two covenant heads of
humanity: Adam and Christ. However, this is not the only way to ground these
theological truths, and covenant theology’s primary weakness is that it grounds
these truths by a covenantal construction foreign to Scripture.

5|Page
Furthermore, there is little warrant for the ratification of two distinct covenants in
Genesis 1–3, first in Genesis 2:15–17 and then in Genesis 3:15 (as covenant
theology contends). Instead, it’s better to view Genesis 3:15 as God’s gracious
post-fall promise that, despite Adam’s sin and rebellion, God’s purpose for humans
will stand, and that, from humanity, God will graciously provide a Redeemer to
undo what Adam did. Thus, from Genesis 3:15 on — and through the covenants —
we see the unfolding revelation of the new covenant.
Furthermore, careful readers of Scripture will want to avoid categorizing the
covenants as either conditional/bilateral (law) or unconditional/unilateral (gospel),
as covenant theology tends to do. Instead, Scripture teaches that each covenant
contains both elements, but with a clear distinction between the covenant in
creation before and after the fall. Thus, what was demanded of Adam before the
fall is not confused with God’s promise of redemption after the fall, and the
Christological promise of Genesis 3:15 gets unpacked across the covenants,
revealing that redemption is always and only in Christ alone. In fact, it’s because of
this blend of both elements that we can account for the deliberate tension that is
created in the Bible’s covenantal story — a tension that heightens as God’s plan
unfolds and is resolved only in Christ’s perfect obedient life and death for us.
On the one hand, the covenants reveal our triune God, who makes and keeps his
promises. As God initiates covenant relationships with his creatures, he is always
the faithful partner (Hebrews 6:17–18). Regardless of our unfaithfulness, God’s
promises, starting in Genesis 3:15, are certain. Yet God demands perfect obedience
from us, thus explaining the bilateral aspect of the covenants. But as the covenants
progress, a tension grows between God’s faithfulness to his promises and our
disobedience. God is holy and just, but we have sinned against him. And due to
Genesis 3:15, God’s promises are tied to the provision of an obedient son who will
undo Adam’s disastrous choice. But where is such a son/seed, who fully obeys
God, to be found? How can God remain in relationship with us unless our sin is
removed? It is through the covenants that this tension increases, and it is through
the covenants that the answer is given: God himself will unilaterally act to keep his
own promise by the provision of an obedient covenant partner — namely, Christ.
“Christ alone can secure our salvation, and in him alone are the covenants
fulfilled.”
If we maintain this dual emphasis in the covenants, we can account for how and
why in Christ the new covenant is unbreakable, which also underscores Scripture’s

6|Page
glorious Christological focus. The Bible’s covenantal story leads us to him. Christ
alone can secure our salvation, and in him alone are the covenants fulfilled.
How, then, does Scripture present the covenants? Not in terms of a bicovenantal
structure, but as God’s one redemptive plan unfolded through multiple covenants
that all progressively reveal the greater new covenant. For this reason, we cannot
simply appeal to the “covenant of grace” and draw direct lines of continuity,
especially regarding circumcision-baptism and the mixed nature of Israel-church,
without thinking through how each covenant functions in God’s overall plan, and
how Christ brings all the covenants to fulfillment in him, which results in crucial
changes across the covenants, reaching their greater fulfillment in the new
covenant.

Creation Covenant as Foundation

Second, as in covenant theology (different from dispensationalism), we need to
account for why the covenants are more than just a unifying theme of Scripture but
the backbone of Scripture’s redemptive plotline, starting in creation and
culminating in Christ. Although dispensationalism acknowledges the significance
of Genesis 1–11 for the Bible’s story, “The idea of a creation covenant . . . has no
role.”3 But this is the problem. There is abundant evidence for such a covenant,
and its significance for putting together the covenants is twofold.
First, the creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since all
subsequent covenants unpack Adam’s role in the world as our representative head
(Romans 5:12–21; Hebrews 2:5–18). Adam, and all humanity, is created as God’s
image-son to rule over creation (Genesis 1:26–28; Psalm 8). Adam is created to
know God as he mediates God’s rule to the world. God demands perfect obedience
from his covenant partner, which, sadly, he fails to fulfill (Genesis 2:16–17; cf.
Genesis 3:1–6). But God graciously promises that a woman’s seed will come
(Genesis 3:15), a greater Adam who will reverse the effects of sin and death. All
subsequent covenant heads (Noah, Abraham, Israel, David) function as subsets of
Adam, but they are not the greater Adam; instead, they only point forward to him.
Without a creation covenant as the foundation, the remaining covenants hang in
midair.
Second, the creation covenant is foundational for establishing crucial typological
patterns that reach their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant — for example,

7|Page
the rest of the seventh day (Genesis 2:1–3) and salvation rest in Christ (Hebrews
3:7–4:13); Eden as a temple sanctuary fulfilled by Christ as the new temple (John
2:19–22); and Adam as a prophet, priest, and king fulfilled in Christ (Acts 2:36;
3:22–26; Hebrews 7). As these typological patterns are unveiled through the
covenants, they eventually terminate in Christ and his church.
Thus, to put the covenants together according to Scripture, we must start in
creation. Genesis 1–11 is framed by God’s creation covenant first made with Adam
and upheld in Noah. Then as God’s salvific promise (Genesis 3:15) is given greater
clarity through the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, it’s brought to a climax in
the promise of an individual, the Davidic son-king who will rule the world forever
(2 Samuel 7:14, 19). In this promise of a son, we hear not only echoes of Israel as
God’s son (Exodus 4:22), but also echoes of Adam and the initial seed promise
(Genesis 3:15). Central to God’s covenantal plan is the restoration of humanity’s
role in creation, and by the time we get to David, we know this will occur through
David’s greater son.
However, David and his sons disobey, thus leaving God’s promises in question.
But the message of the Prophets is that although Israel has violated her covenant,
God will keep his promise to redeem by his provision of a faithful Davidic king
(Psalms 2; 72; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6–7; 11:1–10; 49:1–7; 52:13–53:12; 55:3; 61:1–
3; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Ezekiel 34:23–24). In this king, identified as the “servant of
Lord,” a new/everlasting covenant will come with the outpouring of the Spirit
(Ezekiel 36–37; Joel 2:28–32), God’s saving reign among the nations, the
forgiveness of sin (Jeremiah 31:34), and a new creation (Isaiah 65:17). The hope of
the Prophets is found in the new covenant.
For this reason, the new covenant is not merely a renewal of previous ones, as
covenant theology teaches. Instead, it is the fulfillment of the previous covenants
and is, as such, greater. Since all of the covenants are part of God’s one plan, no
covenant is unrelated to what preceded it, and no covenant makes sense apart from
its fulfillment in Christ. No doubt, new-covenant fulfillment involves an already–
not yet aspect to it. Yet what the previous covenants revealed, anticipated, and
predicted is now here. This is why Jesus is the last Adam and the head of the new
creation (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22); the true seed and offspring of
Abraham, who brings blessings to the nations (Galatians 3:16); the true Israel,
fulfilling all that she failed to be (Matthew 2:15; John 15:1–6); and David’s greater
son, who rules the nations and the entire creation as Lord.

8|Page
The Bible’s covenantal story begins in creation, and to put the covenants together
properly requires that we start with a creation covenant that moves to Christ and
the fulfillment of all of God’s plan and promises in the ratification of a new
covenant.
New and Greater Covenant
Third, our putting together of the covenants must also account for the Israel-church
relation. Minimally, Scripture teaches two truths about this relation that
theologians must account for.
First, against dispensationalism, Scripture teaches that God has one people and that
the Israel-church relation should be viewed Christologically. The church is not
directly the new Israel or her replacement. Rather, in Christ, the church is God’s
new-covenant people because Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Adam and
Israel, the true seed of Abraham who inherits the promises by his work (Galatians
3:16). As God’s new creation/humanity, the church remains forever, comprised of
believing Jews and Gentiles, who equally and fully receive all of God’s promises
in Christ, realized fully in the new creation (Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:10, 16). As
Ephesians 2:11–22 teaches, the church is not the extension of Israel, or an
amalgam of Jews and Gentiles, or merely one phase in God’s plan that ends when
Christ returns to restore national Israel and the nations. Instead, the church is God’s
new-creation people, Christ’s bride who lasts forever (Revelation 21:1–4).
Dispensationalism and its covenantal construction do not sufficiently account for
these truths.

But second, against covenant theology, the church is also new and constituted
differently from Israel. Covenant theology correctly notes that Israel, under the old
covenant, was constituted as a mixed people (Romans 9:6). Yet it doesn’t
sufficiently account for the newness of the church. It fails to acknowledge that
what the Old Testament prophets anticipated is now here in Christ in his church —
namely, that in the new covenant, all of God’s people will know God, and every
believer will be born-empowered-indwelt by the Spirit and receive the full
forgiveness of sin (Jeremiah 31:31–34).
“One is in Christ not by outward circumcision/baptism but by the Spirit’s work in
rebirth and granting saving faith.”

9|Page
Given its bicovenantal view, covenant theology fails to see that the relationship
between God and his people has changed from the first covenant to the new; it’s
not by natural but by spiritual birth that we enter the new covenant. For this reason,
the church is constituted not by “you and your biological children,” but by all who
savingly know God. One is in Christ not by outward circumcision/baptism but by
the Spirit’s work in rebirth and granting saving faith. In contrast to Israel, the
church is constituted as a believing, regenerate people. This is why baptism in the
New Testament — the sign of the new covenant — is applied only to those who
profess faith and give credible evidence that they are no longer in Adam but in
Christ. Also, it explains why circumcision and baptism do not signify the same
realities, due to their respective covenantal differences. To think that circumcision
and baptism signify the same reality is a covenantal-category mistake.
This view of the church is confirmed by other truths. Although we await our
glorification, the church now is the eschatological, gathered people identified with
the “age to come.” For those who have placed their faith in Christ, we are now
citizens of the new/heavenly Jerusalem, no longer in Adam but in Christ, with all
the benefits of that union (Hebrews 12:18–29). Also, the church is a new
creation/temple in whom the Spirit dwells (1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 2:21),
which can be true only of a regenerate people, unlike Israel of old. On these points,
covenant theology, due to its imprecision in putting together the covenants, doesn’t
sufficiently account for how all of the covenants have reached their fulfillment in
Christ, resulting in the newness of the church.

In Christ Alone
As we continue to discuss these important matters, we would do well to not only
seek to conform our views to Scripture’s own presentation, but even more
significantly, to glory in Christ Jesus, who is central to all of God’s plans and
purposes. In Christ alone, all of God’s promises are Yes and Amen (2 Corinthians
1:20), and in our covenantal debates we must never forget this truth.

10 | P a g e
In Christ, the divine Son has become the promised human son, Abraham’s seed, the
true Israel, and David’s greater son. By Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and
ascension, and by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, he pays for our sin and
remakes us as his new creation. Ultimately, the central point of the covenants is
that, in Christ alone, all of God’s promises are fulfilled, the original purpose of our
creation is now accomplished, and by grace, we as the church are the beneficiaries
of his glorious, triumphant work, now and forevermore. May this glorious truth
unite Christ’s church as we continue to wrestle with how to put the covenants
together according to Scripture.
By “the covenants,” I am referring to six covenants associated with Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Israel, David, and the new covenant.

Docetism, Eutychianism, and Apollinarianism differed on their views of the two

natures of Christ, but they agreed upon the unity of His person. To put it another
way, regardless of how they viewed the human nature and its relationship to the
divine nature, they taught that there was but one subject who acted when Christ
acted. Christ is not two subjects or two persons, one human and one divine, who do
different things. Rather, He is one subject, one personal agent who speaks and acts
no matter what is said or done.
For all of their errors regarding the natures of Christ, these heresies did understand
that Christ is but one person. The Nestorian heresy, on the other hand, not only
confessed two different natures in Christ but also two different persons. Named
after Nestorius, the fifth-century bishop of Constantinople, Nestorianism was the
final major heresy that eventually gave rise to the church’s definitive response
regarding the person of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
According to Nestorius, Jesus is the union of two persons—a human person and a
divine person. This is not a union of essences but rather a close moral union. In
other words, Nestorius believed the union was not such that we could say the
humanity of Jesus actually belongs to the Son of God. Instead, it belongs only to
the human person. When Christ died, it was not the incarnate Son of God suffering
according to His human nature; it was the human person who died. When Christ
performed a miracle, it was not the incarnate Son of God acting according to His
divine nature to manifest His power; it was the divine Logos acting independently
of the human person in Jesus.

11 | P a g e
The errors of Nestorianism become evident when we reflect on the atonement. If
Christ is two persons, who died on the cross? It cannot be the infinite divine person
of the Son, for He has not assumed a human nature. He possesses only a divine
nature, which cannot experience suffering. So, it must have been the human person
who suffered and died because the human person in Christ has a human nature,
which can experience suffering. But then we have the death only of a finite person,
for human persons are finite. And the merit of a finite human sacrifice could hardly
be applied to anyone besides the finite person who offers it. Thus, the Westminster
Larger Catechism 38 says that Christ had to be God—He had to be a divine person
with a human nature so as to give His human suffering sufficient worth to atone for
many (Heb. 5:9). Nestorianism gives us an insufficient atonement.
ACTS 20:28–31
“After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things” (vv. 29–
30).
We could easily apply Ecclesiastes 1:9 (“there is nothing new under the sun”) to
the topic of heresy. All of the theological controversies and false teachings we face
in our own day have already occurred in one form or another in church history.
Certain christological errors pop up again and again, and a look at past heresies
will help us develop a sound Christology today.
Particularly important for our purposes are those heresies in the period leading up
to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Today and tomorrow, we will look briefly at
these heresies and the orthodox response given at the council. Three false teachings
will occupy our study today:
1. The Ebionite Heresy was one of the first challenges the church faced, although it
basically died out by the end of the fifth century. This heresy arose in Jewish-
Christian circles and denied the deity of Christ altogether. Jesus, the Ebionites said,
was a unique man, equipped in a special way by the Spirit of God to be the
Messiah; however, He was in no sense God Himself.
2. Dynamic Monarchianism was a greater threat to biblical orthodoxy in the early
church. This Christological heresy rejected the deity of Christ as well, believing
that Jesus was a mere man who was later adopted by the Father as the Son of God
at His baptism. In this adoption Jesus did not share in the being or essence of God;

12 | P a g e
rather, the unity they shared was moral and ethical. This heresy is sometimes
termed adoptionism.
3. Modalistic Monarchianism affirmed Christ’s deity, but it did not see any
distinction between the Father, the Son, or the Spirit. This error conceives of one
God who wears three masks: in ancient days He was the Father; two thousand
years ago, He walked the earth as the Son; and since the time of Pentecost, He is
the Spirit. Instead of being one essence with three distinct persons, God is one
essence and one person. Historically this heresy has also been called Sabellianism,
named after Sabellius, a man considered to be its chief promoter. There is some
debate as to whether Sabellius actually held this specific view or some other
heresy, but either way, he lacked a biblical understanding of God.
In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις
dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom" is the heterodox doctrine that the
phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human
form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly it is taken as
the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an
illusion.
The word Δοκηταί Dokētaí ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied
Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–
203), who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to
a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery. It
appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning,
figurative or literal, of a sentence from the Gospel of John: "the Word was made
Flesh".
Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is
regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic
Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church, and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the
statements of these early church councils, such as Reformed Baptists, Reformed
Christians, and all Trinitarian Christians.
Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either
absent or illusory.[11] The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous. Two varieties were
widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could
not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not
physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a
13 | P a g e
phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man
in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of
a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him
upon his death on the cross.
Monophysitism (/məˈnɒfɪsaɪˌtɪzəm/ or /məˈnɒfɪsɪˌtɪzəm/) or monophysism (/mə
ˈnɒfɪzɪzəm/) (from Greek μόνος monos, "solitary"and φύσις physis, "nature") is a
Christology that states that in the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus
Christ) there was only one nature—the divine.
Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiɒn, ˌhoʊm-/ HO(H)M-oh-OO-see-on; Ancient Greek:
ὁμοούσιον, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and
οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence") is a Christian theological term, most notably
used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or
"same in essence" with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). The same term was
later also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in
essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of
theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important
theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.
Miaphysitism is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the "Incarnate Word,
is fully divine and fully human, in one 'nature' (physis)." It is a position held by the
Oriental Orthodox Churches and differs from the Chalcedonian position that Jesus
is one "person" (Greek: ὑπόστασις) in two "natures" (Greek: φύσεις), a divine
nature and a human nature (Dyophysitism).

14 | P a g e