[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":371},["ShallowReactive",2],{"footer-links":3,"content-\u002Fevolution\u002F451-chalcedon":12},[4,9],{"path":5,"title":6,"type":7,"isExternal":8},"\u002Fabout","About","link",false,{"path":10,"title":11,"type":7,"isExternal":8},"\u002Fdisclaimer","Disclaimer",{"id":13,"title":14,"body":15,"description":362,"extension":363,"meta":364,"navigation":366,"path":367,"seo":368,"stem":369,"__hash__":370},"content\u002Fevolution\u002F451-chalcedon.md","451 (Council of Chalcedon)",{"type":16,"value":17,"toc":353},"minimark",[18,22,26,41,46,65,83,92,109,118,122,136,143,149,152,155,168,180,184,199,212,221,228,249,261,264,268,281,319,334,338,346],[19,20,14],"h1",{"id":21},"_451-council-of-chalcedon",[23,24,25],"p",{},"The Council of Chalcedon met in 451 to settle a question that had divided Christian leaders:",[23,27,28],{},[29,30,31,32,36,37,40],"em",{},"How could Jesus Christ be spoken of as ",[33,34,35],"strong",{},"both truly human and truly divine"," without making him ",[33,38,39],{},"2"," separate subjects?",[42,43,45],"h2",{"id":44},"why-the-council-met","Why the Council Met",[23,47,48,49,60,61,64],{},"Earlier councils had already called Jesus the Son of God and spoke of him as ",[29,50,51],{},[33,52,53],{},[54,55,59],"a",{"href":56,"rel":57},"https:\u002F\u002Fson.ofgod.info\u002Fnature",[58],"nofollow","divine and human",". The dispute was how those claims fitted together. Church leaders wanted to ",[33,62,63],{},"protect two convictions at once",":",[66,67,68,76],"ol",{},[69,70,71,72,75],"li",{},"Jesus was ",[33,73,74],{},"one Christ",", not two separate sons or agents.",[69,77,78,79,82],{},"The ",[33,80,81],{},"humanity of Jesus was real",", not lost or changed by union with divinity.",[23,84,85,86,91],{},"Nestorius became a focus of the first concern. He rejected the idea of two Sons, although his critics feared that his way of distinguishing divinity and humanity divided Christ into two subjects. ",[54,87,90],{"href":88,"rel":89},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.britannica.com\u002Fbiography\u002FNestorius",[58],"Britannica's account of Nestorius"," notes that it is doubtful he taught the later position called Nestorianism. The Council of Ephesus condemned him in 431, but the underlying question remained.",[23,93,94,95,98,99,102,103,108],{},"Eutyches became a focus of the other concern. He was reported to say that Christ was ",[29,96,97],{},"“of two natures”"," before the union but one after it. His opponents feared that this language made Jesus' ",[33,100,101],{},"humanity no longer fully distinct",". ",[54,104,107],{"href":105,"rel":106},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.britannica.com\u002Fbiography\u002FEutyches",[58],"Britannica's account of Eutyches"," records this dispute.",[23,110,111,112,117],{},"Chalcedon therefore met to reverse the 449 settlement and state a formula that rejected both feared outcomes. The council sought one acting Son while retaining complete divinity and complete humanity. Its ",[54,113,116],{"href":114,"rel":115},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.newadvent.org\u002Ffathers\u002F3811.htm",[58],"Acts and Definition"," preserve the council's decision in an old English translation.",[42,119,121],{"id":120},"what-chalcedon-decided","What Chalcedon Decided",[23,123,124,125,130,131,135],{},"The Definition says Jesus Christ is “one and the same Son” in ",[29,126,127],{},[33,128,129],{},"two"," complete natures, ",[29,132,133],{},[33,134,59],{},".",[23,137,138,139,142],{},"In simple terms, ",[29,140,141],{},"person"," answers “who is this?” The council's answer was one Son.",[23,144,145,148],{},[29,146,147],{},"Nature"," answers “what is he?” Its answer was fully divine and fully human.",[23,150,151],{},"The council did not teach two Sons, two Christs, or a divine being merely wearing a human body.",[23,153,154],{},"It described this union with four safeguards: “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation”. The first two deny that divinity and humanity mixed into a third thing or that either ceased to be what it was. The last two deny that the natures made two persons or could be split apart.",[23,156,157,158,161,162,167],{},"The Definition also says ",[33,159,160],{},"Christ has a rational human soul and body",". These phrases are ",[54,163,166],{"href":164,"rel":165},"https:\u002F\u002Fsourcebooks.fordham.edu\u002Fbasis\u002Fchalcedon.asp",[58],"the council's teaching",", not wording taken directly from Scripture.",[23,169,170,171,176,177,135],{},"The council did not invent ",[54,172,175],{"href":173,"rel":174},"https:\u002F\u002Fson.ofgod.info\u002Ftrinity",[58],"the Trinity"," or the claim that Christ was divine and human. It supplied ",[29,178,179],{},"a rule for holding those claims together",[42,181,183],{"id":182},"how-it-influenced-christianity","How It Influenced Christianity",[23,185,186,187,190,191,194,195,198],{},"Chalcedon made its formula a test of accepted teaching in churches that received the council. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and later most Protestant traditions, ",[33,188,189],{},"inherited the formula of one Son with two complete natures",". It gave their teachers and creeds a shared way to explain why the Gospels show Jesus hungry, suffering, praying, and dying, while other texts are read as speaking of ",[29,192,193],{},"divine glory"," or ",[29,196,197],{},"pre-existence",". In this framework, human statements are said of the Son according to his human nature, and divine statements according to his divine nature.",[23,200,201,202,205,206,211],{},"The decision also contributed to a lasting ",[33,203,204],{},"divide among churches",". Many churches now called ",[54,207,210],{"href":208,"rel":209},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.britannica.com\u002Ftopic\u002FOriental-Orthodoxy",[58],"Oriental Orthodox",", including Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian churches, rejected Chalcedon's definition and authority.",[23,213,78,214,217,218,135],{},[54,215,210],{"href":208,"rel":216},[58]," and Chalcedonians both affirm that the one Christ is ",[29,219,220],{},"fully divine and fully human",[23,222,223,224,227],{},"The difference becomes clear in one claim: ",[33,225,226],{},"“After the incarnation, Christ is in two natures.”"," Chalcedonians affirm it.",[229,230,231,239],"ul",{},[69,232,233,234,238],{},"Chalcedonians say his ",[54,235,237],{"href":114,"rel":236},[58],"divine and human natures remain distinct",", though both belong to one person.",[69,240,241,242,245,246,135],{},"Miaphysites traditionally resist that wording because counting two natures after their union can suggest ",[33,243,244],{},"two separately existing Christs",". They instead call the incarnate Christ ",[29,247,248],{},"one united divine-human nature",[23,250,251,252,257,258,135],{},"Chalcedonians likewise deny that Christ is two persons (",[54,253,256],{"href":254,"rel":255},"https:\u002F\u002Forthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com\u002F2013\u002F12\u002F14\u002Ffirst-agreed-statement-1989\u002F",[58],"1989 agreed statement","). The dispute concerns ",[29,259,260],{},"how to describe the united Christ",[23,262,263],{},"The formula thus shaped later creeds, how many Christians read biblical passages about Jesus, and which churches recognise one another's teaching as orthodox.",[42,265,267],{"id":266},"scriptures-challenge-to-two-natures","Scripture's Challenge to Two Natures",[23,269,270,271,276,277,280],{},"Merely showing that ",[54,272,275],{"href":273,"rel":274},"https:\u002F\u002Fson.ofgod.info\u002Fson-as-man\u002Fdistinct",[58],"the Father and Son are distinct"," does not refute neither Chalcedon nor Miaphysite claims. They distinguishes them too. The question is ",[33,278,279],{},"whether Scripture identifies"," Jesus as possessing a divine nature in addition to being the human Messiah.",[23,282,283,284,287,288,291,292,298,299,291,302,306,307,291,310,314,315,318],{},"Peter describes Jesus as “a ",[33,285,286],{},"man attested to you by God","” through works “that ",[33,289,290],{},"God did through him","” (",[293,294,297],"span",{"className":295,"dataReference":297},[296],"bible-ref","Acts 2:22","). He then declares that “",[33,300,301],{},"God has made him both Lord and Christ",[293,303,305],{"className":304,"dataReference":305},[296],"Acts 2:36","). Paul calls the mediator between God and humanity “the ",[33,308,309],{},"man Christ Jesus",[293,311,313],{"className":312,"dataReference":313},[296],"1 Timothy 2:5","). The passages attribute Jesus’ works and ",[33,316,317],{},"appointed authority from God",", instead of a second divine nature.",[23,320,321,324,325,328,329,333],{},[33,322,323],{},"Jesus' is still dependant on God after his earthly life."," Paul says that, after the kingdom’s enemies are subdued, “the ",[33,326,327],{},"Son himself"," will also be subjected” to God (",[293,330,332],{"className":331,"dataReference":332},[296],"1 Corinthians 15:28","). This makes the Son’s relation to God part of the final scene, not merely a temporary limit before his resurrection.",[42,335,337],{"id":336},"conclusion","Conclusion",[23,339,340,341,345],{},"Chalcedon defined ",[54,342,344],{"href":343},"#what-chalcedon-decided","one Son in two complete natures",", seeking to avoid both a divided Christ and an incomplete humanity.",[23,347,348,349,135],{},"Its formula became a major Christian standard for Chalcedonian traditions and helped form the lasting ",[54,350,352],{"href":351},"#how-it-influenced-christianity","division from Oriental Orthodox churches",{"title":354,"searchDepth":355,"depth":355,"links":356},"",2,[357,358,359,360,361],{"id":44,"depth":355,"text":45},{"id":120,"depth":355,"text":121},{"id":182,"depth":355,"text":183},{"id":266,"depth":355,"text":267},{"id":336,"depth":355,"text":337},"Council of Chalcedon in 451, its one-person and two-natures formula, and the biblical questions that continue to surround it.","md",{"keywords":365},"Council of Chalcedon 451, Chalcedonian Definition, one person two natures, Nestorius, Eutyches, non-Chalcedonian churches",true,"\u002Fevolution\u002F451-chalcedon",{"title":14,"description":362},"evolution\u002F451-chalcedon","7POhbUq0-nYabdOvkGie1trCnkL6Gljn6F6qZ2rBhlM",1790311768508]