The Doctrine of the Person of Christ in the Early ChurchThe Council of Chalcedon
The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 condemned Discurus along with Eutychianism. Leo’s previously unread letter, known as Leo’s Tome, argued for two distinct natures in Christ after the incarnation, yet without denying their unity as had the heretic Nestorius. The orthodox Christological views of Leo, that Christ was of two natures united in one person, were then articulated in the Chacedonian Creed. It is important to note that the 520 bishops gathered at this council were not seeking to dispose of the Nicene Creed as inadequate. The Nicene Creed had been affirmed as the orthodox statement faith for Christendom, and the purpose of Chalcedon was to offer a commentary on Nicea that took into account the heresies that had arisen since 325.
The language of the Creed specifically addressed the previously mentioned heresies. Against Apollinarius, the Council stated that Christ had a “rational soul and body.” To counter Nestorius, the Creed discussed the two natures of Christ “without dividing,” “without contrasting,” and as “not divided or cut into two prosopa (persons).” Finally, in denunciation of Eutychianism, the unity of the Christ’s dual nature was articulated “without confusing” and “without transmuting” them. In the incarnation “both natures concur,” that is, neither Christ’s humanity nor his deity is nullified.
| . | Gonzalez, Justo, A History of Christian Thought, Vol I, 380. | | . | Bingham, Jeffrey, “HT200 Class Notes,” Dallas Theological Seminary , ( 2004).
|
|
About Us
Started by two college roommates with a few hand-me-down theology books.
Now a fun site to find out whether you're orthodox or heretical.
|