Is it true that "God's original plan included man not defecting and God becoming a man"?
Atheanthroposialism says no.
Theanthroposialism says yes.
Union with God is our proper ultimate goal, and practical human life is the natural and original arena for this. Atheanthroposialism denies this, seeking that arena elsewhere, and this hinders the pursuit of our cultural task.
|Heresy||Heretical Belief||Reformation||Reformational Belief|
|Docetism||Christ was not a real man, though he appeared in human form.||Anthroposialism||Christ was a real man.|
|Adoptionism||Christ was originally just a man, but he entered a unique union with God.||Filionaturalism||Christ was divine from the beginning.|
|Arianism||He who became a man was not God but the first of his creatures.||Homoousialism||God himself became a man.|
|Monopatrism||He who became a man was not God's essence but his prime manifestation.||Filioquism||God's essence became a man.|
|Restitutionalism||God's intention to become a man was based on his knowledge of man's defection.||Elevationalism||God's intention to become a man was not based on his knowledge of man's defection.|
|Supralapsarianism||To give himself someone to restore, God decreed that man should defect.||Infralapsarianism||God's intention to restore followed his knowledge of man's defection.|
The name "Atheanthroposialism" (Greek a- "not", theos "God", anthropos "human", -osis "becoming"), implying simple rejection of theanthroposis, is not quite right, as Restitutionalism and Supralapsarianism do admit that God has become a man, while not admitting that he would have done so if man had not defected. Suggestions for a better name are welcome.
"Are you the one?" In discussing these heresies, I assume that the theanthroposis either occurred in Jesus of Nazareth, or will never occur. I am not aware of anyone ever seriously suggesting that it might be someone else. It is true that John the Baptist wondered whether he should "look for another", but that was before he understood the character of Jesus' messianism; the real question was not "who" but "what". My Creed does (eventually) refer specifically to the historical Jesus, but not so much as an additional belief but as a confirmation that the earlier beliefs are taken seriously. However, the discussion of this group of heresies is independent of specifics, and any reader who believes in theanthroposis but is "looking for another" (or thinks they have found him) need only replace the word "Christ" with "whatever man turns out to be God".
Order. The heresies are arranged in the table roughly in order of increasing subtlety, which is also roughly chronological. Each heresy accepts the wording of the previous reformation but reinterprets it with a new twist.
If we accept that God had an "original plan", the above statement has two parts. Most variants of Atheanthroposialism deny the second; Supralapsarianism denies the first.
Back to Influential Heresies.