Theological Foundations of Christian Spirituality

Theological Foundations of Christian SpiritualityCS/TH 650

Defining this CourseCS/TS 650

Horizon of Ultimate Value(Sandra Schneider’s statement in Holder, Chapter One)

Christian Spirituality specifies the horizon of ultimate value as the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ to whom Scripture normatively witnesses and whose life is communicated to the believer by the Holy Spirit making her or him a child of God. This “new life”…is celebrated sacramentally within the believing community and lived in the world as mission in and to the coming reign of God.

• Triune God; Jesus Christ; Scripture; Holy Spirit; sacramental celebration; believing community; coming reign of God

The seven Theological Loci of this course

1) The Trinity (“triune God”)2) Christology (“revealed in Jesus Christ”)3) Scripture (“to whom Scripture normatively witnesses”)4) Pneumatology (“communicated…by the Holy Spirit”)5) Sacraments (“is celebrated sacramentally”)6) Ecclesiology (“within the believing community”)7) Eschatology (“lived in the world as mission in and to the

coming reign of God.”)

Defining Christian Spirituality

(“Christian Spirituality specifies the horizon of ultimate value…”) • Definition: The existential phenomenon of a life of faith and

discipleship.

What we want to be able to answer…

• What we believe to be of ultimate value, and how this is communicated to us;

• How belief forms our lives;• How our beliefs are lived out in the world.

The Ordo Theologiae for this Course…1. The Holy Scriptures2. The Trinity3. Christ (Christology)4. The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)5. Sacraments6. Church (Ecclesiology)7. The Kingdom of God (Eschatology)

Defining this Course(Sandra Schneider’s statement in Holder, Chapter One)

Christian Spirituality specifies the horizon of ultimate value as the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ to whom Scripture normatively witnesses and whose life is communicated to the believer by the Holy Spirit making her or him a child of God. This “new life”…is celebrated sacramentally within the believing community and lived in the world as mission in and to the coming reign of God.

A word about Soteriology…

…The horizon of ultimate value as the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ…whose life is communicated to the believer by the Holy Spirit making her or him a child of God.

• Christology• Pneumatology• Role of Faith• Nature of Grace and Justification: Forensic or Regenerative?

(declared righteous and/or made righteous?)

Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (M. Noll)

1. The Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)2. The Council of Nicaea (325)3. The Council of Chalcedon (451)4. The Monastic Rescue of the Church – Benedict’s Rule (530)5. Christendom – Coronation of Charlemagne (800)6. The Great Schism (1054)7. Diet of Worms (1521)8. English Act of Supremacy (1534)9. The Conversion of the Wesleys (1738)

A “Rough” Correspondence

Theological Loci

1. The Holy Scriptures2. The Trinity3. Christ (Christology)4. The Holy Spirit

(Pneumatology)5. Sacraments6. Church (Ecclesiology)7. The Kingdom of God

(Eschatology)

“Turning Points”Fall of JerusalemCouncil of NicaeaCouncil of ChalcedonGreat Schism

Diet of WormsAct of Supremacy,

MonasticismChristendom, Wesleys

Major Figures in this Course: Church Fathers

• Irenaeus of Lyons • Tertullian• Origen of Alexandria• Athanasius• Cappadocian Fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa,

Gregory of Nazianzus• Augustine of Hippo

Honorable Mention: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome

Dishonorable Mention: Marcion of Sinope, Arius, Apollinarius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Pelagius

Major Figures: Monks, Mystics• Anthony of the Desert• Benedict of Nursia• Francis of Assisi• Dominic

Honorable Mention: Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Thomas a Kempis, Ignatius of Loyola, Martin of Tours, Julian of Norwich

Major Figures: Scholastics• Thomas Aquinas• Peter Abelard• Duns Scotus• William of Occam

Honorable Mention: Albertus Magnus, Anselm of Canterbury,

Major Figures: Reformers• Martin Luther• John Calvin• Menno Simons• Thomas Cranmer• John Wesley

Honorable Mention: John Wycliffe & Jan Hus (pre-Reformation), Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, Jacobus Arminius, Richard Allen

Major Figures: Modern Period• Karl Barth• Dietrich Bonhoeffer• Martin Luther King, Jr.• Gustavo Gutierrez

Honorable Mention: Friedrich Schleiermacher, William Seymour, Paul Tillich, James Cone

First Theological LocusThe Holy Scriptures

First Theological Locus: The Holy Scriptures• Canonical Considerations:

• Hebrew Bible or Old Testament (39)• New Testament (27)• Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha)

• Hermeneutical Considerations:• Allegorical, typological, historical-literal• Christian interpretation is EMINENTLY Christological

• Doctrinal Considerations• Who or what defines the faith?

Turning Point: Destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70)

Effects of AD 70• The loss of the Temple – Israel’s cultus no longer serves as the

focus of unity for worldwide Jewry.• The importance of synagogue and the power of

excommunication• The decline of the Sadducees; the ascent of the Pharisees• The decline of “Jewish Christianity”; the ascent of “Pauline

Christianity” – (Gentiles outnumber Jews)• Hellenism loses its influence on Judaism; permanent hold on

Christianity

Developments in Judaism (post-AD 70)

• Hebrew/Aramaic became the exclusive sacred language-base• Hellenism was rejected• Rejection of the LXX and/or the Old Testament in Koine Greek• Rejection of books not known to exist in extant Hebrew or

Aramaic manuscripts and/or books known to have been written after the time of Ezra (480-440 BCE)

• The curse of the “Minim” – a group that included the Judeo-Christians and Gnostics

• The gradual expansion of the concept of Torah to include Mishnah (220 CE, “oral Torah”), Tosefta (supplement to Mishnah), The Jerusalem & Babylonian Talmuds (3rd-5th centuries CE, “instruction,” rabbinical commentaries on the Mishnah), and the midrashim (homiletical method of interpretation)

Which Old Testament?• Septuagint (LXX) – the Bible of the early church.

Approximately 85% of OT quotes in the NT come from the LXX• Apocrypha – What status?

• Jerome was the first to advocate for using the Hebrew Bible as the basis for the “official” OT of the Church (Vulgate)

• Jerome did not consider the apocryphal books to be of equal inspiration with the rest of the OT

King James’ List of Apocrypha• 1 Esdras (Vulgate – 3 Esdras, in appendix)• 2 Esdras (Vulgate – 4 Esdras, in appendix)• Tobit• Judith • Rest of Esther (Vulgate – Esther 10:4-16:24)• Wisdom• Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (Vulgate – all part of Baruch)• Song of the Three Children (Vulgate – Daniel 3:24-90)• Story of Susanna (Vulgate – Daniel 13)• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate – Daniel 14)• Prayer of Manasses (Vulgate, in appendix)• 1 Maccabees• 2 Maccabees

How this question divided the Church

• DIVISION OF EAST/WEST• The Eastern Church continued to recognize the LXX as the

Christian Old Testament• The Western Church opted for the Hebrew Bible as the Christian

Old Testament• DIVISION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC/PROTESTANT

• The Roman Church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired• The Protestants regarded the Apocrypha as something less than

inspired

NT composition in relation to AD 70

Written well prior to AD 70• Undisputed letters of Paul (50-

60)• 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1

Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, Romans

Written between AD 60s-80s• Revelation (if early – 60s)• Mark (shortly before AD 70?)• Matthew (shortly after AD 70?)• James (80s)• Colossians (80s)

• If not Pauline

• Hebrews (80s)

Written well after AD 70• Late First Century (80s-90s)

• Luke/Acts• Ephesians (If not Pauline)• Gospel of John• 1,2,3 John• Revelation (if late)• Jude

• Early Second Century• 2 Thessalonians (if not Pauline)• 1 Peter• 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus• 2 Peter (AD 120)

Overview of the Gospels in light of AD 70”

• Mark – written in anticipation of destruction of Jerusalem; announces imminent return of Jesus Christ

• Matthew – rewrite of Mark (but probably shortly after the destruction), so perspective the same on Jerusalem; however, Matthew includes more parables about the return of Christ and the unexpected nature of it (seems more disassociated from the destruction of Jerusalem)

• Luke – used Mark’s gospel, but obviously retrospective, providing details of the siege of Jerusalem; second coming is even further disassociated from the destruction

• John – contains the statement “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days”; the antagonists are called “the Jews”

Other NT works…• Hebrews (80s) – theological treatise explaining how the work

of Christ (both during his life and continuing in heaven) fulfills and completes the role of the OT Tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrificial system

• Revelation (early-60s, or late-90s) – If early, the book is describing events leading up to AD 70, particularly the reign of Nero; if late, then retrospective; anticipates the inevitable conflict that Christians will have with the state

• Late “Pauline” Epistles – reflect later theology and the “institutionalizing” of the church

Emergence of the NT Canon• Marcion of Sinope (110-160)• Marcion’s “Dilemma”

Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation. (Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, 30 – early third century)

Muratorian Canon (AD 200)

• Four Gospels and Acts• 13 Epistles of Paul• James• 1, 2 John• Jude• Revelation of John• Revelation of Peter (?)• Shepherd of Hermas (only for devotional

purposes)

Attested to by Origen (early 3rd century)• Four Gospels and Acts• 13 Epistles of Paul• 1 Peter• 1 John• Revelation• Disputed: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Shepherd,

Barnabas, Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews

Attested to by Eusebius (early 4th century)Books Received by All• 4 Gospels / Acts• 13 Pauline Epistles• 1 Peter• 1 John• Revelation (which he personally excluded)

Books Disputed, but Well-Known• James• 2 Peter• 2-3 John• Jude

Attested to by Eusebius

Books to be Excluded:• Shepherd of Hermas• Epistle of Barnabas• Didache• Gospel of the Hebrews• Revelation of Peter• Acts of Peter

Council of Carthage (AD 396)

• Four Gospels and Acts• 13 Pauline Epistles• Hebrews• James• 1-2 Peter• 1-3 John• Jude• Revelation

Christological Interpretation• Prime Example: Isaiah 7 & Matthew 1

• “A virgin will conceive…”• Different approaches to Christological Interpretation:

• Allegorical (i.e. gleaning a higher meaning from the text than the literal)

• Typological (e.g. David Christ)• Literal (e.g. predictive prophecy)

Authority & Doctrine

The Bible as a Source of Doctrine: Who or What Defines the Faith?• Pope?• Ecumenical Council? (Who calls councils?)• Local consensus? (By whose authority?)• The Individual?

Second Theological LocusThe Holy Trinity

Second Theological Locus: The Holy Trinity

Be familiar with:• The 4th century Arian controversy• The Council of Nicaea (325 AD)• Monarchianism• The definition of homoousios• The distinction between Essence & Person (ousia & hypostasis)• Athanasius’ aphorism: “God became Man so that Man might

become god.”

Turning Point: The Council of Nicaea (325)

Arianism• Radical Monotheism: tenacious to maintain the sole Monarchy

of the Father• The Son as the “firstborn” over all Creation (“begotten in

time”)• The Son is given the title “god” because he is created as the

perfect Image of God• Condemned by the Council of Nicaea (325)

The Arian Controversy• Seedbed of the controversy: Alexandrian approach

• Accommodationist stance towards Philosophy• Representative theologians: Justin, Clement, Origen

• God seen as “perfection” (i.e. immutable, impassible, and fixed, unbegotten)• Allegorical interpretation helped Hellenistic thinkers to make

sense of a Bible which presented an “earthy” God• Logos theology: Logos = reason of God (personal, capable of

direct relations with the world and with humans)

Logos Theology

Immutable God(Perfection)

Mediating Logos (Reason)

Mutable Created Order (Humanity)(Imperfect)

Logos Theology: “Begottenness”

• The Arian controversy would hinge on the interpretation of the Greek term gennetos (“begotten”)• In Greek philosophy this term had a broader, hence vaguer sense

than the way it is used in the NT • “came to be” or “derived from” or “generated”

• Alexandrian Christian thought had learned to express its monotheistic stance by insisting that God is the sole agennetos (“underived” or “unbegotten”)• All else that exists was derived or generated (including the Son)• However, the way that the Son was generated was unique over

against the way all other things were generated

Origen’s understanding

• All things were generated or “begotten” out of nonexistence (creatio ex nihilo), except for the Son

• The Logos (Son) was generated or “born” from God, and thus was truly the “only-begotten Son” of the Father• The Logos is “eternally begotten” (begotten from eternity)• Hence the Logos is in a secondary but real sense divine

• What Origenist tradition envisaged was a pluralism of divine persons within a hierarchy of being:

God (eternal, unchanging first principle)The Logos or Son (Image of God, begotten from God)

All Creatures (called out of non-existence)

Monarchianism: a “Western” heresy

Emphasize that God is one person…• Sabellianism (Modalism):

• God manifested and works in three modes: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

• No personal distinctions within Godhead• Adoptionism:

• Christ as man is totally infused (indwelt) by the God, thus “adopted” into the Godhead

Council of Nicaea (325)• Called by Constantine the Great• Condemned Arius• Defined the Son as homoousios with the Father• Articulated a statement that would become the basis for the

later “Nicene Creed.”

The parties at Nicaea…

1. Arian Party led by Eusebius of Nicodemia (small group)2. Anti-Arian Party led by Alexander of Alexandria (small group)3. The Western Position: Saw the matter as a controversy

between Eastern followers of Origen; sufficient to declare that in God were “three persons and one substance” (Tertullian’s position)

4. Patripassianism (Sabellians or Monarchians): The Father and the Son are the same person (the Father “suffered the passion”)

5. Majority of bishops at the council held to the traditional Eastern Subordinationist position; sought a compromise position

The Eastern Subordination View

• Based on Logos Theology (Origen’s explanation)• God (Father) is sole agennetos; all else is gennetos (begotten)• Creatures are generated or begotten out of nonexistence, thus

are “begotten and made”• The Son is “eternally begotten” from God (thus born of God),

hence is “begotten, not made.”• Christ is divine in the sense of being from God, but

subordinate to God• UNRESOLVED: What is the true nature of the Logos?

Homoousios• Definition: “of one substance” or “consubstantial”• To say that the Son is homoousios with the Father is to say the

Son shares a common substance, nature or essence with the Father.

• Not to be confused with homoiousios which would mean that the Son’s substance or essence is “like” or “similar” to the Father’s.

Creed of Nicaea (325)We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta] not made [Gr. poethenta], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias], affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

Distinction between Essence and Person

• Tertullian: “One God in three Personae” (Trinitas)• Persona means “role or character” played by an actor or agent

• Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus• Ousia = Essence = Being

• God is one Essence• Hypostasis = Instantiation of Being

• God is Three Hypostases • Retained the language of Personae (i.e. Persons) in Latin, though this

proved to be a very awkward translation• This distinction enabled the Church to maintain Monotheism

while acknowledging the distinction of “Persons” within the Godhead

Relating Doctrine to Spirituality: ImplicationsAthanasius’ Aphorism:“The Word (or God) was made Man that we might become god (or divine).”

• Soteriological implications?• Eschatological implications?

Third Theological LocusChristology

Third Theological Locus: Christology

Be familiar with…• The concept of Incarnation• Apollinaris’ Christology• Nestorius’ Christology (Nestorianism)• Eutyches’ Christology (Monophysitism)• The Council of Chalcedon (451)• The Hypostatic Union

Turning Point: Council of Chalcedon (451)

Incarnation• “Embodied in flesh”; “The assumption of a physical body &

nature”• In what sense did the Word, who is homoousios with the

Father, become incarnate?• Did Christ assume a full human nature? Is he one hypostasis

(person) or two hypostases (persons) after the incarnation? One physis (nature) or two?

Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 390)• Friend and supporter of Athanasius and the Nicene faith• Largely responsible for converting Basil of Caesarea to the

homoousian position• Christology was driven by the desire to affirm that Christ, the

divine Son, was immediately present to transform and divinize the sinful mortality of the human creature

• Taught that the true “ego” (or life-principle) in Jesus was simply the Logos himself

• Impossible to assert that the divine Son united with a complete, normal human being, for that would require the union of two competing wills, two minds, two selves, and hence two Sons, human and divine

• The unity of Christ would be destroyed; God would not be “with us”

Apollinaris’ Christology• A “trichotomy” of the divine mind, and a human body & soul

DivineLogos(Mind)

Human Body/Soul

Apollinaris’ views attacked• Gregory of Nyssa – Against Apollinaris• Gregory of Nazianzus insisted that since it is not merely the

flesh which sins, but soul and mind as well, it was necessary for the divine Logos to take a complete human nature, intellect as well as ensouled body

• Condemned by a Roman synod in 377 and by a synod in Antioch in 379

• Council of Constantinople included Apollinarianism in its lengthy list of erroneous teachings to be condemned (Canon 1)

“For that which he has not assumed he has not healed, but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved.” (Gregory of

Nazianzus)

Summary: Apollinaris’ Position• Eager to assert the deity of Christ and the unity of his person

led him to deny that Christ had a rational (human) soul.• The Logos (Word) was the seat of rationality, replacing the

human nous (mind)• Christ was thus a spiritualized or “divinized” form of human

being (Docetism)• VERDICT: Not fully human

“Nestorianism”• Initially, the Antiochene position was articulated by Diodore of

Tarsus and his pupil, Theodore of Mopsuestia• The Antiochene opposed Apollinarianism’s teaching that the

Christ is “one composite nature,” objecting that this negated what they wanted to affirm – namely that in Christ were TWO SUBJECTS of action and predication – TWO NATURES (physes) and TWO HYPOSTASES

• This position was too much for those who embraced the Alexandrian position

• The elevation of Nestorius to the patriarchate of Constantinople in 428 brought this issue to a head

Summary: Nestorius’ position• Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431)• Emphasized the disunion of natures (physes): “Divine Word” &

“Human Jesus” (two Christs??)• Objected to the title Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary;

preferred the title Christotokos (Christ-bearer)• Nestorius’ position assumed that physis and hypostasis were

essentially synonymous• Insisted a “true” union at the level of prosopon

• Condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431)• Verdict: Two natures (physes) = two Christs (not a true union

of the divine and human)

Prosopon• In Greek, a theatrical term that meant a mask or face; hence,

virtually synonymous with persona in Latin• Terminology was often the source of much theological confusion

between East and West• In Greek theology, prosopon came to mean a “self-

manifestation of an individual” • The Antiochene position (championed by Nestorius and many

of his predecessors) was that a true union existed at the level of the prosopa, hence a prosopic union

• Antiochene theology assumed that hypostasis and physis were synonyms

Nestorianism• Prosopic union : One “Prosopon” (i.e. face) – Unity of

Indwelling

“The Man” Complete

Human Hypostasis

“The Logos”Complete

Divine Hypostasis

Cyril of Alexandrian: Champion of Alexandrian Christology• “One incarnate nature of the divine Logos”• The one Lord Jesus Christ was identical to the only begotten

Son of God, who was “enfleshed and became a human being”• Therefore, there could only be ONE subject, one nature and

one hypostasis, that of the Divine Logos• The humanity of Christ, body and soul, was a mode of

existence which the Logos made his own through his birth of a woman; the humanity could not be separated from the Logos as “another” beside him

• Nestorius understood Cyril to be saying that the humanity and the divinity had somehow been fused into Christ into something that was no longer either divine or human

Nestorian Controversy• Early on in Constantinople, Nestorius delivered a sermon in

which he condemned the use of Theotokos (God-bearer) as a title for the Virgin Mary• “That which is formed in the womb is not…God”• “God was within the one who was assumed”• “The one who was assumed is styled God because of the One who

assumed him”• More appropriate to refer to Mary as “Christotokos”

• Nestorius’ views were reported to Cyril of Alexandria, a strong supporter of the Theotokos position; Cyril had been looking for an occasion against Nestorius over a case in which Nestorius had reversed a judgment of Cyril in the case of some Egyptian monks

Council of Ephesus (431)• Called by Theodosius II in the East and Valentinian III in the

West• Cyril and his allies were the first to arrive and quickly

condemned Nestorius before his supporters could stop him• John of Antioch (Nestorius’ main support) was delayed in

getting to Ephesus and thus convened his own council to condemn Cyril and exonerate Nestorius

• Finally, the delegates of Pope Celestine (Rome) joined the Cyrillian assembly and proceeded to add John of Antioch to the deposed

• The two sides were at an impasse with Theodosius unsure as to what to do

Formula of Reunion• In 433, John of Antioch sent Cyril his text called the Formula of

Reunion, which admitted to the use of Theotokos, and also that Christ was “complete God and complete human being” and that a “union of two natures had occurred, as a consequence of which we confess one Son.”

• Cyril signed it with enthusiasm; Nestorius’ cause was now lost, and he was exiled: the Cyrillian assembly at Ephesus was vindicated

• This council is known now as the Council of Ephesus (431), the third council considered “general” or “ecumenical”

• However, the document turned out to be a compromise which each side; by 438, Cyril was convinced that the Antiochenes had been duplicitous; he then wrote against the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

• The stage was set for a renewal of acrimony

Controversy flares up again• Cyril’s condemnation of the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and

Theodore of Mopseustia, which many Antiochene signers of the Formula of Reunion still honored

• Cyril dies in 444, succeeded as bishop of Alexandria by Dioscorus, who had little regard for the Formula

• The new bishop of Constantinople was Flavian (447-449), who supported the Formula but was inclined towards the Antiochene position

Eutyches (380-456)• Popular leader of a monastery in Constantinople and the

principle support of Dioscorus of Alexandria in that city; influential in the imperial court

• Accused before Flavian at a synod of teaching that the human nature of Christ was altered or absorbed by his deity

• Eutyches refused to admit that Christ’s humanity was the same (homoousios) as ours, famously maitaining that Christ was “from two natures before the union, but in one nature after the union”

• Eutyches was condemned by the synod but made an immeidate appeal to the imperial court, which then proceeded to demand that Flavian, not Eutyches, produce a confession of faith!

• Back in Alexandria, Dioscorus called for and obtained an imperial summons for a general council

Summary: Eutychianism• Eutyches was a monk of Constantinople (380-456)• Vehemently reacted against Nestorianism• Two natures before the incarnation (divine and human), one

nature after the incarnation (“divinized humanity”) • Christ’s “humanity” without limitations or weaknesses• Verdict: A confusion of the two natures

Prelude to Chalcedon• Both Flavian and Dioscorus appealed to Leo I of Rome (440-

461)• Leo responded to Flavian in a long and carefully argued letter

(Leo’s Tome) that Eutyches was an extremely foolish and altogether ignorant man

• Leo appealed to the baptismal creed of the Roman church to substantiate the traditional western view that Christ has two substances or natures that remain intact and come together in “one person”

• Leo’s Tome would prove to set Rome against its normal ally, Alexandria, in favor of a more Antiochene-friendly christology

Prelude to Chalcedon• Theodosius II called for a council to meet at Ephesus in 449• Dioscorus and his supporters took all necessary steps to

predetermine the outcome• Flavian was condemned; Eutyches vindicated• Leo’s Tome was denied a reading• Flavian died of suspicious circumstances on the way to exile

• Rupture of the ancient alliance between Rome and Alexandria results• Leo calls the council a “robbers’ synod”; calls for a new council to

be held in Italy• Theodosius II refuses; then accidentally dies in 450

• The new empress, Pulchera and her husband, Marcian agree to a new council to be held in Chalcedon (451)

Council of Chalcedon (451) • Fourth council to be called “ecumenical”• Acted quickly to depose Dioscorus and Eutyches (a “win” for

the Antiochenes)• Rehabilitated Antiochene supporters of the Formula of

Reunion (a “win” for the Antiochenes)• Canonized the Second Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

and his letter affirming the Formula of Reunion as adequate expositions of the meaning of the Nicene Faith against the errors of Nestorius (a “win” for the Alexandrians)

• Crafted a formula composed largely of phrases and ideas drawn from Cyril’s letters, Leo’s Tome, and the Formula of Reunion (a “draw” between Alexandria and Antioch with Rome coming out on top)

Chalcedonian Definition• Does not define the union (i.e. how it took place)• Set limits beyond which error lies, for example:

• Nestorius had gone too far in not admitting to the unity of person• Eutyches had gone to far in not admitting the distinction of

natures

“…One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The union does not destroy the difference of the two natures, but on the contrary the properties of each are kept, and both are joined in one person and hypostasis.”

Aftermath of Chalcedon• Became the standard orthodoxy of the entire Western church

and most of the East• The cause of the first long-lasting schisms in Christian history

• Nestorians (Syrian Churches of the East)• Monophysites (Church of Armenia; Coptic Church)

• Christological differences became both the cause and the excuse for political discord in the empire

• Emperor Zeno’s Henoticon (482) attempted to settle the christological disputes by requiring all to go back to the beliefs held prior to the controversy – failure of imperial policy resulting in the Acacian Schism (between East and West)• Schism healed in 519

Summary: Council of Chalcedon• 451, City of Chalcedon (near Nicaea)• Fourth Ecumenical Council• Affirmed Leo’s Tome (i.e. the Pope of Rome’s treatise on the

Incarnation)• Condemned Eutyches and reasserted the Council of Ephesus’

condemnation of Nestorius• Definition: Hypostatic Union

Important Terms• Monophysitism: Christ has “one nature”

• Prevailing theology of Alexandria• Athanasius, Cyril (but also Apollinaris)

• Dyophysitism: Christ has “two natures”• Prevailing theology of Antioch• John of Antioch, Pope Leo (but also Nestorius)

Christological Ironies• The Council of Ephesus (431) had condemned Nestorian

Dyophysitism in the face of Cyrillian Monophysite challenges.• The Council of Chalcedon (451) condemned Eutychian

Monophysitism in light of Leo’s Dyophysitism (while upholding Ephesus’ earlier verdict!)

Hypostatic Union• Christ is one Divine Person in two natures, divine and human

• Notice: not “of two natures” (deemed monophysite)• En hypostasis, duo phuses• Human nature is enhypostatically united to the Divine Person

Relating Doctrine to SpiritualityThe Importance of Incarnational Theology:• Soteriological implications?• Eschatological implications?• Implications for Christian Spirituality?