Scripture and God in Christianity

Christ; as from the beginning the prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us concerning
him, and the creed of the Fathers handed down to us." 717
By this formula the Council asserted against Nestorianism the unipersonality of Christ and asserted
against Eutychianism Christ's possession of two natures, divine and human, each perfect
and unchanged. As mentioned earlier, the victory was political rather than theological. Grillmeier
observes that "It was only under constant pressure from the emperor Marcian that the Fathers of
Chalcedon agreed to draw up a new formula of belief." 718 Kelly observes that "the imperial commissioners,
in their desire to avoid a split, had to exert considerable pressure before agreement
could be reached." 719 W. A. Wigram writes that the Council "failed to command respect, because
it was imposed for political reasons, by a government that, as was too often the case, was making
a fetish of uniformity. The verdict was, and was felt to be, a "government job," and not a free decision
of the fathers of the Church. Had Theodosius lived longer, the Council would not have
been held at all, and its decision was given, as things were, largely through the votes of Bishops
who had gone with Dioscurus at Ephesus, and who shifted round readily to the opposite side, as
soon as it was clear what line the Emperor was going to take." 720 He further observes that "in
large districts, the Council was rejected at once, and in none, save only in Rome, was there any
enthusiasm for its doctrine. For more than century, however, the antagonism felt for it was admitted
to be that of a party in the Church, and not that of a separatist body. The word "heretic" was
not applied to those who rejected Chalcedon, even by the Bishops who persecuted them. They
were called "Distinguisher," or one may say "Nonconformists." 721
The critics of Chalcedon like Timothy (surnamed Aelurus, 477) and Philoxenus, on the other
hand, honestly believed that "in their ignorance the so-called Fathers who had assembled to define
the faith `had ordained nothing other than that the impure doctrines of Nestorius should be
received and preached in all the Churches of God.'" 722 To them the Council "so separates, and
personalizes, what is divine and what is human in Christ that the hypostatic union is dissolved,
and its place taken by a mere conjunction of the divine Logos and a Man." 723 Likening themselves
to the tribe of Judah they parted company with the orthodoxy. "For how could they, who
alone were worthy of the title `orthodox', offer obedience to a Council which had caused Israel to
sin? Nay, a curse lay upon that Council, and upon all who agreed with it, for ever." 724 Therefore,
with the passage of time the old theological controversies surfaced again and again. Monophysites
once again asserted their old claim of Jesus having one nature and one theanthropic will
or monothelitism. Orthodoxy opposed this trend and in 680 at the third council of Constantinople
(the sixth ecumenical council) were able to get their doctrine of 'dyothelitism' approved. By this
doctrine the idea that Christ had two wills, a divine and a human, was officialized and has remained
orthodox ever since both in the East and West. 725
At Chalcedon and later at Constantinople the human side of the picture of Christ was saved.
Grillmeier argues that "If the person of Christ is the highest mode of conjunction between God
and man, God and the world, the Chalcedonian 'without confusion' and 'without separation' show
the right mean between monism and dualism, the two extremes between which the history of
christology also swings. The Chalcedonian unity of person in the distinction of the natures provides
the dogmatic basis for the preservation of the divine transcendence, which must always be
a feature of the Christian concept of God. But it also shows possibility of a complete immanence
89