Theological
Foundations of
Christian Spirituality
CS/TH 650
Defining this Course
CS/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)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
The Trinity (“triune God”)
Christology (“revealed in Jesus Christ”)
Scripture (“to whom Scripture normatively witnesses”)
Pneumatology (“communicated…by the Holy Spirit”)
Sacraments (“is celebrated sacramentally”)
Ecclesiology (“within the believing community”)
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Holy Scriptures
The Trinity
Christ (Christology)
The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)
Sacraments
Church (Ecclesiology)
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
The Council of Nicaea (325)
The Council of Chalcedon (451)
The Monastic Rescue of the Church – Benedict’s Rule (530)
Christendom – Coronation of Charlemagne (800)
The Great Schism (1054)
Diet of Worms (1521)
English Act of Supremacy (1534)
The Conversion of the Wesleys (1738)
A “Rough” Correspondence
Theological Loci
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Holy Scriptures
The Trinity
Christ (Christology)
The Holy Spirit
(Pneumatology)
5. Sacraments
6. Church (Ecclesiology)
7. The Kingdom of God
(Eschatology)
“Turning Points”
 Fall of Jerusalem
 Council of Nicaea
 Council of Chalcedon
 Great Schism
 Diet of Worms
 Act of Supremacy,
Monasticism
 Christendom, 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
Locus
The 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 JudeoChristians 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 (5060)
• 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
Locus
The 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:
Implications
Athanasius’ Aphorism:
“The Word (or God) was made Man that we might become god
(or divine).”
•
•
Soteriological implications?
Eschatological implications?
Third Theological
Locus
Christology
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
Divine
Logos
(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 “selfmanifestation 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 Logos”
Complete
Divine
Hypostasis
“The Man”
Complete
Human
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 (440461)
• 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
Spirituality
The Importance of Incarnational Theology:
• Soteriological implications?
• Eschatological implications?
• Implications for Christian Spirituality?