preview

Council Of Chalcedon Essay

Decent Essays

However, a diverse group ranging from the monks at Constantinople to Egyptian bishops loyal to Dioscorus opposed the definition. They considered themselves as Pro Nicene and anti Nestorian, but they worried that the council was being heretic . Ultimately, the Chalcedonian definition stated that after the incarnation, Christ was in two natures without mixture, change, division or separation .
Furthermore, part of the disagreement between the Eastern and Western Church was because the definition stated that Christ is acknowledged in two natures, which come together into one person and one hypostasis. The critics (some Eastern churches) understood this to side with western Christology, they felt that it diverged from the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria who said that Christ has one nature. The church of Alexandria felt that the definition should have stated that Christ is to be acknowledged as “out of two natures” and not “in two natures”. However, some scholars argue that the language of “two natures” also derives from Cyril . Ultimately, the assertion of …show more content…

In the case of Nestorianism, if the incarnation was a case of a male son of Mary being indwelt by the divine son of God, then Jesus Christ is not different from a Christian because Christians believe that they are indwelt by the son. If that was the case, then the incarnation did not take place. This would make the doctrine of atonement null and void because it would suggest that Christians were saved by a human being leading to whether human suffering can atone for sins. In the case of Eutychianism, if Christ’s humanity was swallowed up in his divinity, then the incarnation (God becoming man) did not really take place, but it seems to be more a case of man extinguished and lost in God, thereby also making the incarnation null and

Get Access