Ancient Orthodoxy: The Importance of Chalcedon in Your Local Church
“What does Chalcedon have to do with me? In fact, what does Chalcedon even refer to in the first place?” These are often the first questions from church members and even pastors when confronted with the Chalcedonian Creed. And usually, our questions represent our neglect of church history. Whether it is the early ecumenical councils or the Protestant Reformation, we evangelicals cannot afford to lose such rich, biblical doctrines that believers have clarified, adopted, and espoused.
Yet why the neglect? The typical fear associated with creeds and councils is that they somehow add a foreign definition to the Bible. Since Scripture tests all things (including the early ecumenical creeds), this fear is understandable. But once tested by Scripture, helpful clarifications of biblical doctrine are welcomed. The Chalcedonian definition is one such example. Produced by the Council of Chalcedon, this is simply a formalized statement that expounds the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ and His incarnation.
In this essay we will explore the Chalcedonian definition and its history. And in so doing, we will consider why Chalcedonian Christology should be the norm for contemporary Christology and local church teaching.
The Natures of the Debate: The History of Chalcedon
After the Apostles’ deaths, the Church found itself with the momentous task of defining biblical Christology. When we consider this, we mustn’t imagine a group of men who called councils and wrote creeds for academic exercise—not the case at all. Instead the Church called councils and defined orthodoxy against the threats of heresy.
Let’s consider the evidence. While the Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381) unequivocally affirmed Christ’s absolute divinity, they did not define the relationship between His human and divine natures. No, they left this to the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Put simply, these councils considered the difficult question of how Christ is simultaneously and fully human and divine in His nature. Nevertheless, the Council of Ephesus failed to clearly define this relationship.
So what happened at Ephesus? In short, a debate ensued. Cyril of Alexandria stood on one side, representing the Alexandrian position. And Nestorius of Constantinople stood on the other, representing the Antiochene tradition. While these two men weren’t necessarily chosen representatives, they represented the two major approaches to the union of Christ’s natures.
What is it that these men taught? Cyril taught that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine, without mixture, yet without separation. This is the orthodox position today and is known as the hypostatic union of Christ. Cyril and Nestorius had debated these matters through exchanging letters. In his first letter to Nestorius, Cyril had written:
We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that he was transformed into a perfect man of soul and body. We say, rather, that the Word, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, ineffably united to himself flesh animated with a rational soul, and thus became man and was called the Son of Man. [1]
By stating, Cyril acknowledged Christ’s absolute divinity, while maintaining the necessity of Christ’s humanity in the union. Emphasizing Christ’s divinity, he referred to Mary as the “Mother of God.” Yet herein laid the point of conflict.
Like Cyril, Nestorius also emphasized Christ’s humanity in the hypostatic union. However, his attempts led many to accuse him of seeing Christ as merely a man. Uncomfortable with referring to Mary as the “Mother of God,” Nestorius preferred the phrase, “Mother of Christ.” For instance, in his second letter to Cyril, Nestorius wrote:
All throughout the sacred Scriptures, wherever mention is made of the Lord’s economy, the birth and sufferings are not passed down to us as if they applied to the Godhead, but to the manhood. This means that the holy virgin should be described, in a more exact designation, not as ‘Mother of God’ but ‘Mother of Christ.’ [2]
This suggests Nestorius’s potential over-emphasis on Christ’s humanity in the union. As a result, the Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius’s views heterodox (less than orthodox).
However, after Ephesus condemned Nestorius for overemphasizing Christ’s humanity in the union, Eutyches began teaching the opposite extreme: namely, that Christ’s divine nature nearly subsumed His human nature. Eventually, this led to the heterodox view that Christ had only one nature. Leo Davis explains, “Eutyches began to teach that before the Incarnation Christ was of two natures, but after it there was one Christ, one Son, one Lord in one hypostasis and one prosopon” (emphasis his) [3]. Despite Eutyches problematic views, a second council in Ephesus (449) actually deemed them orthodox. Since then, Ephesus II has become known as the “Robber Synod” or “Robber Council” because of its less-than-ethical and unorthodox conduct.
Finally, the Council at Chalcedon (451) set matters right. It upheld Cyril’s formulation of the hypostatic union of Christ, and condemned Nestorianism and Eutychianism as unorthodox. “The great council of Chalcedon,” writes Chadwick, “the fourth ecumenical council…systematically reversed almost all of the decisions of Ephesus [II] (449)” [4]. As the Robber Synod was reversed, Chalcedon put forth its Creed of Chalcedon, which has served orthodox believers for millennia.
We will now explore its importance for the Church today.
Chalcedon in Your Local Church
It’s not uncommon in Baptist circles to hear someone make this proclamation: “No creed but the Bible.” This fear or rejection of creeds may be due to the association between creeds and the Roman Catholic Church. If you’re afraid of the doctrines produced at Trent or Vatican II, I understand where you’re coming from. But we mustn’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. There is a great deal for Evangelicals to learn from the first four ecumenical councils—Chalcedon in particular.
(a) Chalcedon in Sunday School
Without most laypersons even knowing it, the very questions that frequently arise in Bible studies and Sunday school classes were addressed by the creeds of Chalcedon, Ephesus, and Nicea. The perennial curiosity with exactly how Jesus is both God and man was actually articulated at Chalcedon. When students ask questions such as, “How could Jesus be both God and man?” most teachers shy away from the question, chalk it up to mystery, or even worse present some Christological heresy.
Yet if that very teacher were familiar with the Chalcedonian definition of Christology, he or she could work through and explain this difficult doctrine. What better way to respond to an important question than by presenting an ancient, orthodox response? Chalcedon is absolutely important for Bible study teachers.
(b) Chalcedon in Preaching
Lacking clarity and orthodoxy in a Bible study is a dangerous thing. And while it is dangerous, it is somewhat understandable for laypersons not to fully grasp these difficult doctrines of Christology. However, it is frightening to encounter Gospel ministers who have insufficient knowledge about Christ’s Incarnation.
Christmas is one of most common times to experience unorthodox Christological preaching. Explaining exactly how Christ, being God, is born of a woman, while still retaining His full deity, is not an uncommon task for ministers. But this is a much more dangerous task than we often admit. Many things can go wrong when attempting to proclaim the birth of our Lord. Nestorianism and Eutychianism are prime examples of the inherent dangers associated with teaching about the Incarnation.
Not every pastor will pursue formal, biblical education, but every pastor must read good books that will inform him on these essential doctrines. Denominations mustn’t expect every pastor to obtain a doctorate before pursuing full-time ministry, but we must hold the standard high for those who desire to preach Scripture’s deep truths. If a pastor were aware of the Chalcedonian Creed, he would readily be able to explain that Christ was “begotten of his Father before the world according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood.”
As is the case for laypersons teaching Bible studies, there is no better way to clearly proclaim biblical Christology than to consult this ancient Creed. Not only does it provide clarity, but it helps root local congregations in the historic orthodoxy of the Christian faith.
Conclusion
The ecumenical creeds produced by the early Church may still be the Church’s greatest ally for orthodox teaching today. The creeds were developed by the early Church in order to defend against heresy and promote orthodoxy. Pastors must take responsibility for protecting their congregation against the danger of being led astray by modern remixes of ancient heresies. We must be careful to accurately preach the majesty of Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, death, burial resurrection, and ascension. While the Bible is our final authority, the Chalcedonian Definition helps guide us as we search the depths of God’s Word. May we proclaim the glorious truth that “Christ became what we are in order that we may become what He is” [5].
_______________________________________
Read the Creeds:
The Chalcedonian Creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/chalcedonian-creed.html
The Nicene Creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html
[1] Cyril of Alexandria, “The Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,” in Readings in World Christian History, Edited by John W. Coakley and Andrea Sterk, (New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 166.
[2] Nestorius of Constantinople, “The Second Letter of Nestorius to Cyril,” in Readings in World Christian History, Edited by John W. Coakley and Andrea Sterk, (New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 168.
[3] Leo D. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 171.
[4] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church), Revised. (Penguin, 1993), 203.
[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses.
Recent Comments