The Definition of Chalcedon (451)The Council of Nicea in 325 had addressed the discussions and controversies over how to understand the relationship between God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it did not put an end to them. Nicæa had rejected the view of Arianism, which held that Jesus was so human that he was of a different substance and nature than God. However, soon afterward the opposite idea emerged, that Jesus was not really a human being, that his human nature was so overpowered by the divine nature that his humanity was either obliterated altogether or was submersed in the divine (a position known as monophysitism, "one nature").
The fourth ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in Asia Minor (what is now Turkey) met in 451 to address the idea that Jesus lacked a human nature (along with other ecclesiastical issues). Chalcedon attempted to define a way that balanced Jesus’ divine and human aspects by emphasizing that Jesus had two natures unified in one person, so that he was genuinely human and yet truly divine. The theologian Tertullian had already formulated a basic doctrine of Christ's person(Against Praexes, chapter 27, about 200AD!) -- Christ was two natures in one person. His divine nature and his human nature were both resident in a single person. Chalcedon was also careful to avoid saying that Jesus was two persons, a position called Nestorianism that had already been rejected at the third ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.
The definition summarizes the Church's teaching on the natures of Christ largely in negative terms, and is the most comprehensive confession of the Person of Christ:
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten - in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Creed of the Fathers* has handed down to us.
*a reference to the Nicene Creed
The Council put forth a Christological doctrine known as the “hypostatic union” ("hypostasis," meaning essence). In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union."
The Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all Christological debate, but it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for all other Christologies. Several groups in the Eastern Church, especially in the Middle East, rejected Chalcedon and adopted the "one nature" position of monophysitism, which many still hold today. However, in most of the church the Definition of Chalcedon became the accepted doctrinal definition of the person of Jesus the Christ.
The fourth ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in Asia Minor (what is now Turkey) met in 451 to address the idea that Jesus lacked a human nature (along with other ecclesiastical issues). Chalcedon attempted to define a way that balanced Jesus’ divine and human aspects by emphasizing that Jesus had two natures unified in one person, so that he was genuinely human and yet truly divine. The theologian Tertullian had already formulated a basic doctrine of Christ's person(Against Praexes, chapter 27, about 200AD!) -- Christ was two natures in one person. His divine nature and his human nature were both resident in a single person. Chalcedon was also careful to avoid saying that Jesus was two persons, a position called Nestorianism that had already been rejected at the third ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.
The definition summarizes the Church's teaching on the natures of Christ largely in negative terms, and is the most comprehensive confession of the Person of Christ:
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten - in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Creed of the Fathers* has handed down to us.
*a reference to the Nicene Creed
The Council put forth a Christological doctrine known as the “hypostatic union” ("hypostasis," meaning essence). In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union."
The Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all Christological debate, but it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for all other Christologies. Several groups in the Eastern Church, especially in the Middle East, rejected Chalcedon and adopted the "one nature" position of monophysitism, which many still hold today. However, in most of the church the Definition of Chalcedon became the accepted doctrinal definition of the person of Jesus the Christ.
All of the major branches of Christianity— Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Protestantism—subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation..
No comments:
Post a Comment