Church History
8/12/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§141. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451." (pp. 2451-2457).
The events discussed previously, through the Robber Synod, resulted in Eastern Christianity being held by the Eutychians and monophysites (Schaff 2014, p. 2451). Pope Leo, who had been deposed by decree of the Robber Synod (though not in fact), responded by urging a synod in Italy, even as he circulated his Epistola Dogmatica, dealing with the matters of Christology which were taken as the cause of the Robber Synod. In the East, the death of Theodosius in 450 caused a political shift in favor of Leo and a desire for peace throughout the empire (Schaff 2014, p. 2452). Leo's original request for a council in Italy was replaced by a council at Nicaea scheduled for September of 451.
The council which convened in Nicaea was shortly moved to Chalcedon due to "turbulent conduct" (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). In Chalcedon it was more possible for high government officials to attend and for disruptive conduct to be stopped. Approximately 500 or 600 bishops, almost all from the East attended. The group quickly sorted into those favorable to and those opposed to the Eutychians (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). Schaff notes that the discussion would not have been consistent with the forensic decorum accepted at his time (Schaff 2014, p. 2454). Dioscurus and the supporters of the Eutychians were rejected quickly (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). On October 22, a positive decree was passed, which is quoted by Schaff (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). The concept of the Son as one person but with two complete natures was central to the confession (Schaff 2014, p. 2456). Schaff notes that troubles with monophysitism would continue later (Schaff 2014, p. 2457).
"§142. The Orthodox Christology - Analyses and Criticism." (pp. 2457-2466).
Schaff observes that while the first council at Nicaea dealt with the nature of the preexistent Christ, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon, dealt with the incarnate Logos and the relation of humanity and deity in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2457). The pseudo-Athanasian Creed likewise articulated the nature of the human and divine in Christ, and later, in the sixteenth century, became a confession held by all Protestants. The creed articulated at Chalcedon, as well as the pseudo-Athanasian creed, makes no effort at exhaustive explanation, but rather at specific description (Schaff 2014, p. 2458). In Schaff's view, the Chalcedonian creed strikes a mean between monophysitism and Nestorianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). He goes on to discuss the important points in turn.
The second person of the Trinity was truly incarnate due to God's love, so as to redeem fallen humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). In the incarnation, true man and true God exist in one person. The development of Christ in the womb of Mary remains a mysterious process which the creed does not explain (Schaff 2014, p. 2460).
In the creed, nature and person are held to be separate from one another. "Nature of substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self- asserting, and acting subject" (Schaff 2014, p. 2460). There is one divine nature manifest in three persons in the Trinity. At the same time, there is one person of the Christ, but with both a human and a divine nature. Because Christ took on human nature, rather than assuming one particular human to himself, he was able to redeem human nature as a whole.
Christ is, above all, one person, both divine and human (Schaff 2014, p. 2461). He remains one person, though having two natures. His self-consciousness is undivided, since he is just one person.
The distinction of the human and divine natures in Christ is an important element in the Chalcedonian creed. The divine and human are not mixed or separated. Each remains what it is for eternity, never creating some third kind of nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2461).
Christ, though having two natures, is one and only one person (Schaff 2014, p. 2462). His unity is no sort of illusion. There is no division in his person. In a similar way, we cannot divide a Christian into separate physical and spiritual persons.
Because of this unity of persons, the works of Christ are not to be separated into those of his divinity and those of his humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2463).
To avoid any suggestion that, by taking on humanity in Christ, the Logos destroyed the trinity by bringing in a fourth person, the impersonality of the human nature in Christ is of importance. The second person of the Trinity remains the eternal Logos who had a personality and never lost it (Schaff 2014, p. 2463). In taking on humanity, he took on a nature, not a human person (Schaff 2014, p. 2464). The term used in this discussion is enhypostasia, a term which indicates that the human nature, with the divine nature, was never absent from the Logos.
Schaff notes that criticisms of the Chalcedonian conception have risen over the years. However, "these imputations neutralize each other" (Schaff 2014, p. 2465). The creed is well balanced and serves to reconcile criticisms. At the same time, the creed leaves an open door for a broad range of studies.
8/12/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§141. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451." (pp. 2451-2457).
The events discussed previously, through the Robber Synod, resulted in Eastern Christianity being held by the Eutychians and monophysites (Schaff 2014, p. 2451). Pope Leo, who had been deposed by decree of the Robber Synod (though not in fact), responded by urging a synod in Italy, even as he circulated his Epistola Dogmatica, dealing with the matters of Christology which were taken as the cause of the Robber Synod. In the East, the death of Theodosius in 450 caused a political shift in favor of Leo and a desire for peace throughout the empire (Schaff 2014, p. 2452). Leo's original request for a council in Italy was replaced by a council at Nicaea scheduled for September of 451.
The council which convened in Nicaea was shortly moved to Chalcedon due to "turbulent conduct" (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). In Chalcedon it was more possible for high government officials to attend and for disruptive conduct to be stopped. Approximately 500 or 600 bishops, almost all from the East attended. The group quickly sorted into those favorable to and those opposed to the Eutychians (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). Schaff notes that the discussion would not have been consistent with the forensic decorum accepted at his time (Schaff 2014, p. 2454). Dioscurus and the supporters of the Eutychians were rejected quickly (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). On October 22, a positive decree was passed, which is quoted by Schaff (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). The concept of the Son as one person but with two complete natures was central to the confession (Schaff 2014, p. 2456). Schaff notes that troubles with monophysitism would continue later (Schaff 2014, p. 2457).
"§142. The Orthodox Christology - Analyses and Criticism." (pp. 2457-2466).
Schaff observes that while the first council at Nicaea dealt with the nature of the preexistent Christ, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon, dealt with the incarnate Logos and the relation of humanity and deity in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2457). The pseudo-Athanasian Creed likewise articulated the nature of the human and divine in Christ, and later, in the sixteenth century, became a confession held by all Protestants. The creed articulated at Chalcedon, as well as the pseudo-Athanasian creed, makes no effort at exhaustive explanation, but rather at specific description (Schaff 2014, p. 2458). In Schaff's view, the Chalcedonian creed strikes a mean between monophysitism and Nestorianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). He goes on to discuss the important points in turn.
The second person of the Trinity was truly incarnate due to God's love, so as to redeem fallen humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). In the incarnation, true man and true God exist in one person. The development of Christ in the womb of Mary remains a mysterious process which the creed does not explain (Schaff 2014, p. 2460).
In the creed, nature and person are held to be separate from one another. "Nature of substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self- asserting, and acting subject" (Schaff 2014, p. 2460). There is one divine nature manifest in three persons in the Trinity. At the same time, there is one person of the Christ, but with both a human and a divine nature. Because Christ took on human nature, rather than assuming one particular human to himself, he was able to redeem human nature as a whole.
Christ is, above all, one person, both divine and human (Schaff 2014, p. 2461). He remains one person, though having two natures. His self-consciousness is undivided, since he is just one person.
The distinction of the human and divine natures in Christ is an important element in the Chalcedonian creed. The divine and human are not mixed or separated. Each remains what it is for eternity, never creating some third kind of nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2461).
Christ, though having two natures, is one and only one person (Schaff 2014, p. 2462). His unity is no sort of illusion. There is no division in his person. In a similar way, we cannot divide a Christian into separate physical and spiritual persons.
Because of this unity of persons, the works of Christ are not to be separated into those of his divinity and those of his humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2463).
To avoid any suggestion that, by taking on humanity in Christ, the Logos destroyed the trinity by bringing in a fourth person, the impersonality of the human nature in Christ is of importance. The second person of the Trinity remains the eternal Logos who had a personality and never lost it (Schaff 2014, p. 2463). In taking on humanity, he took on a nature, not a human person (Schaff 2014, p. 2464). The term used in this discussion is enhypostasia, a term which indicates that the human nature, with the divine nature, was never absent from the Logos.
Schaff notes that criticisms of the Chalcedonian conception have risen over the years. However, "these imputations neutralize each other" (Schaff 2014, p. 2465). The creed is well balanced and serves to reconcile criticisms. At the same time, the creed leaves an open door for a broad range of studies.
RSS Feed