THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON

We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent

It is said that the Creed or Definition of Chalcedon is an extension of the Nicene Creed against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches of 451 A.D whereby the authors put forth this definition to combat the imagination that the Godhead of Christ and the humanity of Christ were separate entities rather than distinct natures. They drew their authority, however, upon the tradition handed down by the consensus of the holy fathers before them. This, then, is where I have some reserve as to the beginnings of their presumptions of the intentions of the fathers before them. While I would mostly agree with the definition as an apologetic against the presuppositional error of dividing the personhood of Christ into two substances or entities, some intruding on the mind of the fathers before them and the Scriptures themselves may be at play here in the premise of the minds that authored the Creed on that presupposition alone.

This judgment is from my perspective on the sufficiency of the Scripture alone because it begins with an appeal to the tradition of the fathers rather than the knowledge of God or the Scripture itself. Again, this reserve (of mine) is not to side with the presuppositional errors of Nestorius and Eutyches but is reserved for the authority they are asking the critical reader to consent with according to the continuation of the acceptable sayings of this Fourth Ecumenical Council with her definition as the seal (or symbol) of their conclusion of the consideration. Therefore, there seems to be a new pattern of authority represented by the direction of this council (as a precedent) for the generations that follow. So while there seems to be a unanimous consent as the authority of the Creed (handed down), it doesn’t hold the same authority as what the Scriptures claim and prove for themselves as a whole in the self-sufficiency of the power of the living canon of the Word (Heb.4:12; 2Tim.3:16).

Again, while it does appeal to the Old Covenant prophets and to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Word for a measure of its creedal weight, she envelopes that authority with the authority that begins and concludes with the holy fathers handing down this definition to us as the seal of the Creed. This presents an objection for me in that assumption alone by which I believe the definition misrepresents the soul of Christ as the portion of his human nature if I am interpreting the intentions of the authors correctly with how it is traditionally interpreted by some historians as they pass it down in oral tradition. But there is a possibility, in my mind, that this was not the original intention of the conclusion of the authors at all in the statement: “… truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; ...”. Soul can be “easily” antecedent to the Godhead of Christ as to the body being “truly” antecedent to the humanity of Christ in that phrase. Soul and body are not required to be “singularly” antecedent to the humanity of Christ according to the grammar of that phrase.

The question then arises: did Christ take on a human soul as well as a human body, as Q.26 of Benjamin Keach’s Baptist catechism suggests? My personal premise of this mystery is how the Scripture itself presents the progression of the Christ as the Word eternally in relation to the Father before His becoming the Word made flesh (Jn.1:1-2, 14), in relation to the Father and in relation to men of the same creation at the same time (Gen.3:22; Ps.22:1; MK.15:34), until his ascension as the Son of God seated at the right hand of the Father in triumph over sin and death (1Cor.15:20-28), being “one with himself” again as He is in heaven with the glory that was His in relation to the Father before the world was His in triumph as the Son of God “unto us” on earth for a Savior of men (1Tim.4:10; Isa.9:6; Matt.6:10; Jn.1:48; 3:13 (NKJV); Acts 2:34; Jn.17:5; Eph.4:9; Rev.13:8).

That basic quarrel that inspired the Creed, then, is around how the words “became” and “begotten” are to be interpreted in relationship to the Godhead of Christ with the Father and the Spirit before the substances of darkness and light were created for the universe of our present existence (Gen.1:1-4; Jn.1:1-2, 14), which Christ Jesus stepped into to deliver us from sin and death (Jn.3:16), which were also decreed by the Father before the world was and before the Providence of those decreed did any good or evil according to that first cause in the infinite wisdom of God’s omniscient character (Rom.9:9-13), seeing the end of all things from the beginning of all things according to the power of His own will and testament (Isa.46:10). All of that is summed up in the word Word since all things that were created have been created by Him, through Him, and to Him (Col.1:15-18). So, Lord willing, we look into the definition and interpretation of these words as we examine them in the light of the understanding offered to us through the Creed in our next opportunity. May the Lord give us understanding in all things.

Moreover, although Rufinus’s theory that symbolum originally meant sign or token was taken up by a number of other Fathers, it was by no means the only or the most widely favoured exegesis. We have already noticed the popularity of the rather wild guess that it was selected as being equivalent to collatio, or a joint composition. St Augustine lent the weight of his authority to another, much more plausible explanation. The creed is called a symbol, he suggested, on the analogy of the pacts or agreements which businessmen enter into with one another.

Symbolum, it should be noticed, was an ancient Latin borrowing, and in secular usage had meanings ranging from a signet-ring or the impress of a seal to a legal bond or warrant.

 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Third Edition. (London; New York: Continuum, 2006), 55.