The Chalcedonian Creed: Fact, Fiction, or Something Between?

The Counsel of Chalcedon is important to our understanding of the nature of Christ as he is “truly God and truly man”.

Obviously the Chalcedonian Creed was not formed with little philosophical musings (just by the nature of the thing), and the fairly immediate reaction was division. Severus, for example, disagreed on “in two natures”, favoring “out of two natures” because “in two natures” implies two natures after the union (which he viewed as a division in Christ). But that said, even speaking of “two natures” the Counsel affirmed one hypostasis.

So there can be confusion as to how these “two natures” operate. If the creed is correct and there is “one hypostasis” then when we consider Christ calming the storm and Christ growing hungry we are not seeing Christ acting in two separate natures or experiencing things in two separate natures. What we are seeing is one hypostasis – truly God and truly man.


The Creed:


We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

 

I don't believe the creed is incorrect. I believe that what some have held as the creed is incorrect. For example, some would wrestle with the statement that Mary is the Mother of God (in favor of the mother of Jesus, emphasizing his human nature).
As far as I know hypostasis only has two meanings. One is medical and one is philosophical. It's not the medical one.

I'm using the definition "an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or that which lacks substance."

 

Here is my view of this creed.

The Chalcedonian Creed is valuable in that it provides limits and guards against heresy. If you examine it in detail it is a beautifully rendered creed. It threads a line, excluding heresies contemporary to the Counsel while maintaining a biblical understanding.

Jesus is no less God than God, and he is no more man than man. Fully God and fully man.

The creed guards against the heresy of speaking of Christ as possessing two natures . It affirms one hypostasis where Jesus is to be acknowledged in two natures (fully God and fully man).

The creed guards against the heresy of viewing these two natures as if they were two persons (Jesus calming the seas with one nature, being born of Mary in another). Mary is the “Mother of God”, not the mother of Jesus’ humanity. While the distinction of these natures are not taken away by the union, they also cannot be separated. Jesus is God-Man. Not God and man.

But as good as I believe the creed to be, I do not believe it is our authority when dealing with the nature of Christ. I believe the only authority remains Scripture.

 

I echo my response to the echoed statement.

 

Do you believe Mary to be the "Mother of God"? Do you believe Jesus' natures inseparable (Jesus could not suffer in his human nature and still the storm in his divine nature)?

 

So you deny the creed. This orthodox position you speak of, that most (like me) hold specifically states inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably

 

I suspect this neo-orthodox Chalcedonian view is a product of postmodernism as it decontextualize historical positions to to claim them for their own.

In the Chalcedonian view Jesus did not act in one nature at times and in another at other times. Mary was, literally, the Mother of God. The natures were distinct but not separate and distinct (so as to be in one agreement).

This is why I believe it does not work to argue creeds. People have different understandings, philosophies, and emphasis.

We can certainly learn from them (and I do affirm this creed as describing my understanding). But we must go to Scripture when it comes to truth.

 

But if I reject that these "natures" were separated then I deny the Creed? That was the claim.

And I disagree because of the history of the creed itself - it was designed to guard against heresy. It works together.

That's why I don't believe a Calvinist can really be anything but a 5 point Calvinist. Anything less simply isn't Calvinism.

 

Ok. Let's do this.

You have stated that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures. Jesus suffered in his human nature and calmed the seas in his divine nature.

This not only denies the Creed's claim that these natures are inseparable but assumes a different meaning for "natures" which is a denial of the creed itself.

Do you (and @TCassidy ) see what I am saying?

The creed defines these natures in Christ. If Jesus uses these natures separately (eats in one nature, heals the sick in another) then this is an entirely different situation than is addressed in the creed.

 

You never stated that Jesus suffering was in his human nature? His growing in the human nature? His miracles in his divine nature?