First 4 Councils: In general, each of the first 4 ecumenical councils tended to emphasize one dimension of Jesus Christ at the expense of another. In particular, Nicea in 325 focused more on Jesus’ humanity, Constantinople in 381 focused on his divinity, whereas Ephesus in 431 emphasized Jesus humanity again and Chalcedon once again highlighted Jesus’ divinity. Beyond these swings, the major theological differences between the councils are as follows:
Nicea 325 Humanity: Was a showdown between Arius and Alexander and their respective understandings of the core substance of Jesus. Arius claimed that Jesus was not eternal, but created and fundamentally similar, but not the same as the Father. Yet Jesus still possessed enough knowledge of the Father to reveal him to humanity. His opponents, headed up by Alexander and later Athanasius, proposed the hypostasis of the one God as 3 distinct personalities of that SAME substance. This camp also sought to make clear that Jesus was eternally begotten, not made, and that the real humanity of Jesus is essential in terms of soteriology. If Jesus did not fully represent the unity of divinity with humanity, then none can be saved.
Constantinople 381 Divinity: This council marked the end of Arianism in the Roman Empire, and unlike the other councils, it was followed by a time of relative doctrinal peace. Theologically speaking, it ratified the the Nicene doctrine of Christ and condemned Apollinarianism, which denied the full humanity of Jesus.
Ephesus 431 Humanity: Endorsed as the true and authoritative understanding of the Nicene Creed, it asserted that Jesus had two modes of being (divine and human). These two natures could not be divided. While over overemphasizing Jesus’ humanity, this council did reject Apollinarianism (denied the full humanity of Jesus) and Nestorianism (bifurcation of two persons in Jesus: one divine and one human). The problem with the Ephesus response was that it could lead to the conclusion that Jesus merely accomplished salvation by being a good person and cooperating with the divinity that subsumed him.
Chalcedon 451 Divinity: This council declared Jesus to be one “who” and two “whats.” The language to describe the incarnation was: without change, without confusion, without division and without separation, and it sought to protect the mystery of Christ even if it did not particularly accomplish anything in terms of explanation. One son, two natures, but there could be no separation between these “natures.”
Hey, I got some other details out of my reading of Olson. I'll post these as I get to them. Regarding the Council of Nicaea: -Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were the lone holdouts who didn’t sign the Nicene Creed. -Athanasius assisted Alexander of Alexandria -Constantine resided over this council -he wanted unity more than sound doctrine -he called, ran, and enforced the council -he suggested the term consubstancia/ homoousia -Some non-Arians were concerned that the creed would support Sabellianism -the Creed used non-Biblical terms to rule out Arianism (“not made” used to affirm deity of Christ, also homoousios was non-biblical) -BV
First 4 Councils:
ReplyDeleteIn general, each of the first 4 ecumenical councils tended to emphasize one dimension of Jesus Christ at the expense of another. In particular, Nicea in 325 focused more on Jesus’ humanity, Constantinople in 381 focused on his divinity, whereas Ephesus in 431 emphasized Jesus humanity again and Chalcedon once again highlighted Jesus’ divinity.
Beyond these swings, the major theological differences between the councils are as follows:
Nicea 325 Humanity: Was a showdown between Arius and Alexander and their respective understandings of the core substance of Jesus. Arius claimed that Jesus was not eternal, but created and fundamentally similar, but not the same as the Father. Yet Jesus still possessed enough knowledge of the Father to reveal him to humanity.
His opponents, headed up by Alexander and later Athanasius, proposed the hypostasis of the one God as 3 distinct personalities of that SAME substance. This camp also sought to make clear that Jesus was eternally begotten, not made, and that the real humanity of Jesus is essential in terms of soteriology. If Jesus did not fully represent the unity of divinity with humanity, then none can be saved.
Constantinople 381 Divinity: This council marked the end of Arianism in the Roman Empire, and unlike the other councils, it was followed by a time of relative doctrinal peace. Theologically speaking, it ratified the the Nicene doctrine of Christ and condemned Apollinarianism, which denied the full humanity of Jesus.
Ephesus 431 Humanity: Endorsed as the true and authoritative understanding of the Nicene Creed, it asserted that Jesus had two modes of being (divine and human). These two natures could not be divided. While over overemphasizing Jesus’ humanity, this council did reject Apollinarianism (denied the full humanity of Jesus) and Nestorianism (bifurcation of two persons in Jesus: one divine and one human). The problem with the Ephesus response was that it could lead to the conclusion that Jesus merely accomplished salvation by being a good person and cooperating with the divinity that subsumed him.
Chalcedon 451 Divinity: This council declared Jesus to be one “who” and two “whats.” The language to describe the incarnation was: without change, without confusion, without division and without separation, and it sought to protect the mystery of Christ even if it did not particularly accomplish anything in terms of explanation. One son, two natures, but there could be no separation between these “natures.”
-CL
Hey, I got some other details out of my reading of Olson. I'll post these as I get to them.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Council of Nicaea:
-Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were the lone holdouts who didn’t sign the Nicene Creed.
-Athanasius assisted Alexander of Alexandria
-Constantine resided over this council
-he wanted unity more than sound doctrine
-he called, ran, and enforced the council
-he suggested the term consubstancia/ homoousia
-Some non-Arians were concerned that the creed would support Sabellianism
-the Creed used non-Biblical terms to rule out Arianism (“not made” used to affirm deity of Christ, also homoousios was non-biblical)
-BV