The first two heresies were about who Christ is/was. The next two are about how the divine and the human nature are related. The first concerned Nestorius and Theotokos, the God-bearer. The next heresy is from Eutyches and Eutychianism or Monophysitism. All of this is discussed at an excellent level by B. Quash and M. Ward, Heresies and How to Avoid Them: Why It Matters What Christians Believe
.In essence (that's a pun), Eutychianism teaches that Jesus has only one nature, and it is hybrid of divine and human. The impact is that Jesus' humanity is not (quite) the same as ours. The Fourth Council, at Chalcedon in 451, decreed this view incompatible with our gospel and salvation. The Church has always held this viewpoint.
A theme in this book is that heresy prompts reflection that leads to sound theology, to orthodoxy. But, as the author of this chp, Marcus Plested, an Orthodox theologian, states it, orthodoxy is more than reponse to bad ideas but the living articulation of we know to be true about the gospel.
Heretics, Plested observes, did not seek to be wrong but they sought out answers to their own questions. Orthodoxy is "less incorrect" than heresy. And, in fact, Plested contends Eutyches never really taught the hybrid theory of Christ's nature. If Nestorius separated the humanity and deity of Christ too much, Eutyches didn't separate them enough. His critics didn't think he denied his view enough when he made a concession.
It was at Chalcedon, in 451, that Eutyches' view was denied. Here are the words: the perfect humanity and perfect deity were united in Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" (46).
The real humanity of Christ must be affirmed if he is to become Incarnate and take upon himself our nature; the reality deity of Christ must be affirmed if Christ is to satisfy the divine nature in that act of redemption. Furthermore, Eutyches makes communicants at the Eucharist to be "God-eaters" because the bread and wine are taken up into the God-nature of Christ. Hence, the humanity (separable from deity) need to be respected in order to understand the eucharist. And Plested contends Eutyches ultimately destroys the future/eternal human-ness of humans.
Plested is convinced this view isn't held much today, but I'm not so sure: it seems to me that many think of Christ's nature in hybrid terms instead of two inseparate natures. [Slightly corrected.]
It was at Chalcedon, in 451, that Eutyches' view was denied. Here are the words: the perfect humanity and perfect deity were united in Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" (46).
The real humanity of Christ must be affirmed if he is to become Incarnate and take upon himself our nature; the reality deity of Christ must be affirmed if Christ is to satisfy the divine nature in that act of redemption. Furthermore, Eutyches makes communicants at the Eucharist to be "God-eaters" because the bread and wine are taken up into the God-nature of Christ. Hence, the humanity (separable from deity) need to be respected in order to understand the eucharist. And Plested contends Eutyches ultimately destroys the future/eternal human-ness of humans.
Plested is convinced this view isn't held much today, but I'm not so sure: it seems to me that many think of Christ's nature in hybrid terms instead of two inseparate natures. [Slightly corrected.]
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Scott M (##10-13): Maybe that's a sign from God!
Although I think that the definition of Chalcedon is superior to its competitors, I don't consider adherence to the definition a legitimate test of orthodoxy.
It is extremely doubtful that the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox (aka Oriental Orthodox) are actually heretics. The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox viewed each other as heretics for centuries, but over the last few decades they actually started to listen to each other.
Check out the official statements of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox dialogue:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php
BTW, Copts and other Oriental Orthodox consider the label "Monophysite" akin to calling a Catholic a "Papist" or a Muslim a "Mohammedan." The Oriental Orthodox call their own view "Miaphysitism."
Phil: and the new, updated Eastern/Greek Orthodox NT in English is now available: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/
The Intelligence that created the entire Universe is going to sit like a petty bureaucrat and check off the beliefs of people before letting them into Heaven. Yeah, right.
The idea of Heresy is medieval nonsense.
Charles,
You're language prejudices the case because you've equated any view that God cares what one believes with a petty bureaucrat.
The issues are these: Does one have to believe in Jesus Christ? Let's say yes. Once one admits that, one has to ask what one has to believe about Jesus Christ for it to be the real, apostolically-understood Jesus Christ.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.