3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);/QUOTE]
Um...... Sketchy.... First Adam = Human soul given by Pneuma
Second Adam = Soul of God in Flesh, which is also
touchy to say. God imparts soul.
God is Spirit that never was not.
This is a devicive point.
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
This is vague. Minimal amount of substance in what light?
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
This is an odd statement referring to modalism. Of course Jesus was God and uncreated, and further expresses that God the Creator joined with creation to bare His one and Only Begotten Son. The Father is outside of time, while the Begotten Son existed within time. Of coarse the Son of Man and God responded to the Father in a genuine Father Son relationship. Most importantly, Jesus experienced the challenge of dying, human frailty, but without a Sinful nature. To call His Essence a Soul is accurate and also dangerous. Perhaps this is subjective to understanding. Regardless, I understand the point and moderately agree. This however comes with a need for further discussion.
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
This is too vague. Perhaps you could expand on this point.
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
Again, humanity in reference to Christ is touchy. He fully God was also The Son of Man, and in this, He was subjected to proper surrender of His will. However, this needs further exposition. People can skew this important topic in a way that infers Gods work of fulfilling the Law is possible for Humanity, which it is not. In that, I agree, but distinguish a dimensional difference between Gods humanity and sinful mans.
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
Indeed, He did not. He simply did all by surrender to the Father, though He was Fully HE.
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
More exposition from your personally derived understanding please.
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
This is an interesting point. Human? Image of God? There are passages that bear questions in light of this. Genesis 18, where Abraham is visited by 3, heavily insinuates a foreshadowing of Christ in verbiage and reference. Though 2 of the visitors were angels, the one visitor was clearly God. Was this image The Son Of God and Man? Not birthed through Mankind, but to remove that God could have physical form before Jesus..... Well, this would take more clarification of point. In biblical reference this matter becomes simple, but when muddled by simple doctrine, this becomes difficult to express in the rapid fire of a larger idea.
Your responses as to agreement or disagreement with the above?
I have done so. I hope my answers open dialogue on some level.
