Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards

`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'

-          Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

----------------------------------------------------------------------

About five hundred delegates assembled in the great church of St. Euphemia, and the first session of the council was held on 8 October, 451.

The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel

This is where and when the Council of Chalcedon began.  It was not initially intended to be held in Chalcedon, an ancient maritime town less than two miles opposite Constantinople.  It was first planned to be held in Nicea, about sixty miles away.  However, invasions necessitated the attention of emperor Marcian.  Thus, holding the council near the capitol allowed the emperor to look after both state duties and the council.

There was unprecedented imperial interest in this council.  It should be remembered that it was Pulcheria who gained the throne upon her brother’s death; Marcian was her consort.  Pulcheria was determined to support Rome against Alexandria in this council, but also did not want Rome to achieve too high a position.  She wanted Constantinople to come out as equal to Rome. 

Eighteen high-ranking state officials presided over the meetings of this Council.

Their seats were fixed in the church, directly facing the alter, and on either side were the delegates to be seated.

To the left were delegates from Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, and elsewhere; to the right, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine.  At the center: the Holy Gospel.

The most important decisions of the council which have a bearing on the present study are (i) the deposition of Dioscorus; (ii) the acceptance of the Tome of Leo; (iii) the adoption of a definition of faith; and (iv) the exoneration of persons like Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa.

It is this first point that is the subject of this post.  Dioscorus was from Alexandria, the bishopric that Pulcheria wanted to take down a notch. Immediately on the seating of the delegates, the Roman legate demanded that Dioscorus be excluded from the council.  The charge:

‘he had seized the office of judge and dared to conduct a council, without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen.’

This is reference to the council held in 449, later to be deemed indefensible by the Council of Chalcedon.  Despite the commissioners not being convinced, they “unwillingly” required the Alexandrine patriarch to move from his seat to a place in the middle reserved for the accused.  This was the opening scene.

The charges were presented so as to lay the entire blame of this council of 449 on Dioscorus and a small handful of others, thus not charging many of the other delegates attending the earlier council. 

Two specific charges were presented against Dioscorus: he infringed upon the faith of the Church by trying to establish the heresy of Eutyches as orthodoxy, and he deposed Eusebius and Flavian – neither of whom had trespassed the faith in any way.

Recall that until this point, there were different understandings in Alexandria and Antioch regarding the previous statements of the nature of Christ.  They could agree on the statements; they did not agree on what the statements meant.  It strikes me that to accuse either side of heresy – as each side did in turn – was premature.

The Road to Chalcedon: A Review

The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel

The next section of Samuel’s book proceeds to the Council of Chalcedon.  But before coming to this, I would like to review the path thus far.  Something has been bubbling under my surface, and I think I can best express it by summarizing the events prior to Chalcedon.

Keep in mind a couple of points: disagreement regarding the conclusions at Chalcedon in 451 resulted in the first, long-lasting (until today) split in the Church (the more recent would be the split in 1054 between East and West, and the Reformation beginning in 1517). 

The non-Chalcedonian Churches include the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, and others.  These represent a small portion of the Christian community (at least some of these have accepted the better-clarified doctrines on Christ’s nature in subsequent councils). 

Secondly, the disagreements leading up to Chalcedon centered on different views by Alexandria and Antioch regarding how to describe the nature of Christ.  The disagreement between these two sees would play out throughout the time leading to Chalcedon.

From the earliest days after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the development of doctrine began its journey.  We see disputes even in the book of Acts, and disputes did not end with the writing of the book of Revelation. 

The disciples went to the four corners of the known world, even before they had any written New Testament letters or Gospels.  Teachings were passed on orally, each, no doubt carrying understandings that in some ways were unique to each disciples’ views.  I imagine that local custom and culture also influenced how the teaching was understood.

On a better understanding of the nature of Christ, while the question wasn’t somewhat settled until Chalcedon, the essence of the doctrine can be found in the Scriptures and in the earliest Church fathers.

Now, for a brief summary of the events leading to Chalcedon:

Nestorius presided over the see of Constantinople from 428 to 431.  He was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Ephesus in 431 for teaching the “foul doctrine” of two Sons.  Nestorius insisted this was not his teaching, instead using the term prosopon to describe his views.  The council, presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, was held before the Syrian (Antiochene) delegation could arrive.

On the Alexandrine and Antiochene positions: Those representing Antioch were not in full agreement with the positions taken in Ephesus in 431, and opposed to them were those from Alexandria.  Externally this problem was resolved by the reunion of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433.

But the reunion was understood differently by those in the two camps.  This different understanding would lead to further controversies and difficulties – especially after John’s death.  There is something worth noting here: the differences were so nuanced that even a written exchange between the leaders of these two centers of Christendom could be understood differently.

The extreme opposition to Nestorius exposed another heresy, that of Eutyches, an abbot in Constantinople, who maintained that Godhead and manhood were so united in Christ that after the union the manhood became absorbed in the Godhead. 

He was condemned in a synod held by Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, in 448.  Eutyches, however, believed he would be creating new doctrine if he agreed to the statements offered by Flavian.

Natural Law or Chaos

I have started watching a video series entitled “Welcome to Negative World.”  That would be our world.  The speakers are Aaron Renn, Joe Rigney, and James Wood.  I am only into the second video of seven, so I cannot speak to the value of the entire series.  However, I am so far finding it of value.  I discovered the series via a video by Paul VanderKlay, where he examines the first video in the series.

The second video in the series is a talk given by Joe Rigney: The Three Worlds and the Tao.  He presents the case for natural law as what has been broken in our society – yes, there was always sin, but it is today where the sin is codified, celebrated, even mandated by the law.

Toward the end of the talk, he cites from a letter by CS Lewis to Clyde Kilby of Wheaton College (beginning here):

The Tao is the necessary expression in terms of our temporal existence of what God by His own righteous nature is.  One could even say of it that it was begotten, not made.  For is not the Tao simply the Word itself, considered from a particular point of view.  

It is a powerful statement.  Paraphrasing Rigney: The Tao is God’s nature in creation.  Behind the Tao is the Word, the logos – Jesus Himself.

Yes, natural law was there from the beginning; per Lewis, it was begotten as the Son was begotten.  As Doug Wilson often says: our choice is Christ or chaos.  While natural law doesn’t contain the salvific value that comes with Christ, one could also say – in this temporal world – our choice is natural law or chaos.

Conclusion

As I have written often, the search and struggle today is because we no longer hold that it is proper to act in accord with the Tao - objective reality, or, dare I (and CS Lewis and Joe Rigney) say, natural law.  This meaning crisis discussion, held by people like Jordan Peterson, Paul VanderKlay, John Vervaeke and Jonathan Pageau, among others, will come to realize and explore this point or it will never be more than a passing intellectual exercise in a little corner of the internet.

Yes, there has been positive impact on individual lives via this online discussion; this is not a small thing.  But this is only because the conversation is occasionally speaking to natural law ethics and objective reality without acknowledging it is doing so.

The search for solutions to both the meaning crisis and our loss of liberty will eventually come to the same place: the necessity of natural law ethics.  I outline this here, in two books.

Epilogue

Merry Christmas to you all.

Government or State?

Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop, in conversation with Derek Dobalian, ask the question: Should Christians Hate the State?  To which many Christians would reply with the first verse of Romans 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

Of course, a more appropriate Christian reply would be based on the command that we are to love our enemies, but as most of us still haven’t successfully worked through the love God and love our neighbors part, this is much to ask at the moment.  But I digress.

The question raised was about the state, but the apostle Paul writes of governing authorities.  Setting aside the many various understandings of the term “governing” and the different interpretations of the passage in Romans (I have offered mine here and here and here and here), what are we to make of the term “state” and the term “government”?

I offer, and this is well grounded in the history of the Christian West: government is designed to enforce laws that come from a source higher than those governing.  This is true at every level of governance – from civil government down to family government.  This as opposed to a state, which enforces laws of its own making.

The transition can be seen in the outcome of the wars of state-building (wrongly called the wars of religion), and was certainly cemented by the end of the seventeenth century in much of western Europe.

So how does this effect an understanding of Romans 13?  Continuing with the passage:

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Who is to define “good conduct”?  If the ruler is God’s servant for good, on what good basis would God have him rule?  If he is to carry out wrath against the wrongdoer, on what basis is wrongdoing understood?

In other words, does God allow the ruler to develop his own rules, to define what is good?  Is there any example of this Biblically in any of the history prior to Paul’s writing these words?

We know, from the beginning God gave the law.  God gave judges to judge according to God’s law – not to make law.  The various kings of Israel and Judah were considered as acting against God’s law – if not, how could any of these be described as bad kings (as many of these were)?  By definition, every king would be a just king if he is free to make decrees and then acts according to these decrees.

So, a proper governing authority governs according to good law which has come from God (I suggest natural law ethics captures this law).  A state is a governing authority that has usurped God’s authority in making the law.

But I am still not yet to the point of answering the question posed by Tho and Ryan.

Doug Wilson offers a blog post: Trump, NFTs, Fremdschämen, and More.  First, a brief explanation of the title, from Wilson:

·         Trump, well, you know that one.

·         NFTs stands for “Non-Fungible Tokens,” which is a cryptographic asset embedded in a block chain…

·         Fremdschämen is a German word for the embarrassment you feel for someone else who really ought to be embarrassed for himself, but somehow mysteriously isn’t.

Apparently, Trump has sold superhero digital images of himself…and these sold out.  There is plenty of embarrassment to go around here.  But this is a sideline to my focus. 

Wilson offers: “…lawless nations are in need of a Legislator.”

Your Serve

About seven weeks before the council met at Ephesus, Leo of Rome had sent his Tome to Constantinople where it had been well received by Flavian and the party opposed to Eutyches.

The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel

The referenced council was the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, attended by about one hundred fifty bishops.  The purpose was to settle the issue raised by the condemnation of Eutyches in 448 – condemned for not accepting the Antiochene view of the reunion of 433 even though the disagreement in understanding that reunion had not been resolved between the Alexandrines and Antiochenes.  Emperor Theodosius II convened the council, asking Dioscorus of Alexandria to exercise supreme authority over it as president.

In addition to investigating the condemnation of Eutyches, Dioscorus came to the council with his own understanding – the Alexandrine understanding.  This as opposed to the Antiochene understanding under which Eutyches was condemned – and despite the reality that no official reconciliation between these two positions had occurred via a formal council.

In this mix, Pope Leo sent his Tome, intending it (according to Samuel and supported with extensive endnotes) to be understood as the only possible expression of the Christian understanding of Christ’s person.  In other words, exercising Rome’s understanding as the supreme authority, Leo intended to make a statement after which no council would be necessary.

The council convened in any case.  Dioscorus made many statements regarding the proposal that the faith should be confirmed first.  To summarize: there was no need to clarify this, according to Dioscorus.  The faith was already clearly defined by the fathers (referring to Nicea as confirmed at Ephesus) – do you intend to question the fathers? 

This, of course, was the issue at hand – both sides claimed reliance on and harmony with the fathers, but understood the issue differently.  But this time, the council was led by an Alexandrine and not an Antiochene.  In other words, the faith is once again to be defined according to one side – the other side.

Eutyches was called in.  The creed of Nicea was incorporated, and it was submitted that Eutyches held to it, having been baptized accordingly.  This faith was confirmed at Ephesus, and Eutyches accepted it.  He anathematized the heretics such as Apollinarius and Nestorius. In all of this, he implied the Alexandrine view of the reunion.

Two significant sentences from Eutyches’ confession in this council were left out of the minutes incorporated at Chalcedon. 

‘For he who is the Word of God came down from heaven without flesh and was made flesh from the very flesh of the Virgin unchangeably and inconvertibly, in a way he himself knew and willed.  And he who is always perfect God before the ages was also made perfect man in the end of days for us and for our salvation.’

Samuel describes this statement as an orthodox answer to the issue. The statement affirms the Nicene understanding and Christ’s consubstantiality with us.  But it was not included in the minutes at Chalcedon.  Samuel sees this as a deliberate omission, one intended to ensure the pre-determined outcome at Chalcedon of condemning Eutyches as a heretic.

Irenic Dialogue

Irenic: tending to promote peace or reconciliation; peaceful or conciliatory.

Irenicism in Christian theology refers to attempts to unify Christian apologetical systems by using reason as an essential attribute. The word is derived from the Greek word ειρήνη (eirene) meaning peace.  Those who affiliate themselves with irenicism identify the importance of unity in the Christian Church and declare the common bond of all Christians under Christ.

This is different than reaching ecumenical agreement – in fact it is a necessary step before any such agreements are possible: do we understand each other?

I have been watching a series of videos by Dr. Gavin Ortlund via a playlist on his YouTube channel, entitled Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Discussion.  The playlist has over sixty videos and counting.  Ortlund emphasizes his desire for Irenic dialogue: he is not after winning, he is after understanding – hence, he often describes the purpose and method of his dialogue and commentaries as “irenic.”

Something of Dr. Ortlund:

Gavin Ortlund is a pastor, author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith. He is a husband to Esther, and a father to Isaiah, Naomi, Elijah, Miriam, and Abigail (not pictured). He serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California.

Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He is the author of eight books as well as numerous academic and popular articles.

I was very pleased to find this channel and this effort.  I listen to many in the broad Christian world – Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.  Maybe it’s just me, but there is significant content from Catholics and Orthodox regarding their doctrine, faith, etc.  I realize there is also much Protestant content, but I haven’t seen as much of it in the current conversation – in directly addressing the issues, stereotypes, misinformation, etc., regarding the world of Protestant thought and doctrine. 

I don’t at all appreciate when the conversation is dismissive or attacking, when the objective is to score points instead of to make points.  I have seen some that are downright nasty – this toward others who believe Jesus is divine, is the Son of God, that His death and Resurrection in some manner reconciles us once again with God the Father.  Unable to even love their neighbors (in the Mere Christianity house of C.S. Lewis), they even treat them worse than the enemies that they are also called to love.

What I have seen is that so much of the divisiveness is based on comparing the best of one’s doctrines to the worst of the other’s practice.  It only works to increase division unnecessarily.

What I have also seen is that when one understands the doctrines and history, many of what are considered major differences are nothing of the sort.  Not to say that there are no major issues, but clearing the field would bring focus.

Of course, this confusion is understandable when it is amateur publishers or commenters on YouTube videos.  But it is troubling when it comes from those who are well-educated in the doctrines and history.  I have seen it from all sides.

And this is why I appreciate Ortlund’s channel and methodology.  Not to say that I agree with all of it (from the little I have heard from him regarding social and cultural topics, he seems a mess), but his approach is irenic, and he is well-educated not only in Protestant history, he also points back to the earliest Church fathers (his Ph.D. is in historical theology, after all), finding value in many of them – and a common thread from these earliest fathers to many doctrines in Protestant denominations (yes, even Calvin-Reformed).

I offer a few of the comments made in his videos, dealing with some of the stereotypes of Protestant-Reformed theology.  First, a couple of the “solas”:

The Trial

Eutyches was an archimandrite and heretic who lived in the fifth century at a monastery near Constantinople.

-          Orthodox Wiki

[Eutyches], An heresiarch of the fifth century….

-          New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia

In the present context it should be noted that in the light of the opinion that Eutyches was not in fact a heretic….

The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel

One of these is not like the other.  The home Synod of Constantinople in 448 condemned Eutyches as a heretic.  The issues involved were directly relevant to subsequent councils at Chalcedon and beyond.

Eutyches was not a theologian of any standing.  He was a monk who held some standing in the monastic circles around Constantinople, having directed more than 300 monks over thirty years.  He was a friend of Cyril, and an indefatigable supporter of the Alexandrine cause at the capitol.  He had direct access to the emperor’s court.

Flavian (the president of this home synod) and Eusebius of Dorylaeum would leave no stone unturned during the synod, until Eutyches was finally crushed at Chalcedon.  But the story begins here, three years earlier in 448. 

This conflict, which led to Chalcedon, had a simple beginning.  It began in theological debate between Eusebius (“a bishop that was ruthless”) and Eutyches (“an old monk who could exert great influence at the court of Theodosius II but who could not be relied on for any consistent theological discussion”).

On 8 November 448, Eusebius presented to patriarch Flavian of Constantinople a libel against Eutyches.  Although no specific accusations were made nor details offered in the petition, he was accused of presenting ideas contrary to Nicea and Ephesus, demanding that the monk be called to defend himself.  Flavian advised that Eusebius take the matter up privately with Eutyches, however Eusebius persisted.

Thirty-two bishops took part in the proceedings, which lasted two weeks with several sittings.  In the first period, the monk refused to attend despite being summoned three times.  In the latter period and at the seventh sitting, he finally appeared, escorted by representatives of the emperor.  With this, his trial began.

The nature of the faith was first confirmed: Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius and the Formulary for Reunion were read.  The councils of Nicea and Ephesus were confirmed.  Then testimony given by Eutyches was relayed by Presbyter John and Deacon Andrew: the monk denied all charges of heresy; he considered Eusebius an old enemy; he accepted both Nicea and Ephesus; he laughed at the accusation that the flesh of our Lord came down from heaven.

The difficulties were around the subtle language that separated the Alexandrine position from the Antiochene, with Eutyches holding to the Alexandrine view.  After his testimony, he was charged with holding two heretical ideas:

…that he rejected a union of two natures and that he refused to admit that Christ was consubstantial with us.

Some of Eutyches’ testimony is offered:

‘After he became man,’ Eutyches is reported to have said, ‘that is after our Lord Jesus Christ was born, God the Word is worshipped as one nature, namely that of God who has become incarnate.’

‘In which scriptures,’ asked Eutyches, ‘is there the expression of two natures?  Or of the fathers, who has defined God the Word that he has two natures?’

At the same time, Eutyches said that Christ was perfect God and perfect man.

‘May it not happen to me to say that Christ is of two natures, or to argue about the nature of my God,’ said Eutyches.

Eutyches felt that he would be creating doctrine where none existed and where no agreement had been reached.  On this view, Samuel agrees.

In order to make his position clear, Eutyches had prepared a written statement of his faith.  But this was neither received nor read.  It is speculated that the reason it was not accepted was that it registered the monk’s acceptance of Nicea – requiring the synod to decide if the statement was orthodox. 

Flavian would have been forced into a no-win situation if the statement was read – either accepting Eutyches as orthodox (having agreed with Nicea), or concluding that Nicea was not (thus condemning Eutyches).  Per Samuel, this would have forced the synod to make a clear statement of accepting either the Alexandrine or Antiochene position.