Comments on: Chalcedonian Creed http://urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/ Reformed Sermons, Discussion Programs & Lessons, with Audio Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:12:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Rev. John Sawtelle http://urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-21033 Rev. John Sawtelle Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:15:43 +0000 http://www.start.urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-21033 Jose, Mary is called the "mother of God" for theological reasons, not for devotional reasons. It is true that in some parts of the Western empire there were pockets of strong devotion to Mary, when the phrase "mother of God" was used in the Chalcedonian creed. The reason for its insertion however was to clarify a crucial theological point about the person of Christ. A group of thinkers often labeled "Monophosytes" were emerging in the church, led by a man named Eutyches, who was teaching that the divinity of Christ was absorbed by his humanity. This led to considering the incarnate Christ's humanity as almost fully deified and severed any continuity between the humanity of Christ and humans in general, who he came to represent at the cross. As a response to this controversy, the church met in 451 A.D. to clarify the doctrine of the person of Christ, and particularly the relationship of the two natures in the person of Christ. The term "theotokos" (God-bearer) seemed to be an apt way of referring to the unity of the person of Christ. It also had the advantage of about a century of use in theological debate, because it had been used among Christians in the post-Nicean situation as a way of confessing Christ in an orthodox manner over against the Arians. As you can see then, the use of "theotokos" was not intended to under-gird Marian devotion. If it is used for that purpose today, it is surely misguided and manifests an ignorance of the history and theological use of the term. I hope that helps Jose. jsaw Jose,
Mary is called the “mother of God” for theological reasons, not for devotional reasons. It is true that in some parts of the Western empire there were pockets of strong devotion to Mary, when the phrase “mother of God” was used in the Chalcedonian creed. The reason for its insertion however was to clarify a crucial theological point about the person of Christ. A group of thinkers often labeled “Monophosytes” were emerging in the church, led by a man named Eutyches, who was teaching that the divinity of Christ was absorbed by his humanity. This led to considering the incarnate Christ’s humanity as almost fully deified and severed any continuity between the humanity of Christ and humans in general, who he came to represent at the cross. As a response to this controversy, the church met in 451 A.D. to clarify the doctrine of the person of Christ, and particularly the relationship of the two natures in the person of Christ. The term “theotokos” (God-bearer) seemed to be an apt way of referring to the unity of the person of Christ. It also had the advantage of about a century of use in theological debate, because it had been used among Christians in the post-Nicean situation as a way of confessing Christ in an orthodox manner over against the Arians.

As you can see then, the use of “theotokos” was not intended to under-gird Marian devotion. If it is used for that purpose today, it is surely misguided and manifests an ignorance of the history and theological use of the term.

I hope that helps Jose.

jsaw

]]> By: Jose http://urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-21029 Jose Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:26:47 +0000 http://www.start.urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-21029 Why does the chalcedonian creed include "mother of God"? It seems as if the author was putting Mary on the same level of the Godhead, this statement seems to add fuel to the roman catholic exaltation of Mary since, in my opinion, is open to interpretation which is not necessarily a good thing. Explain, if you can. Thank You. Why does the chalcedonian creed include “mother of God”? It seems as if the author was putting Mary on the same level of the Godhead, this statement seems to add fuel to the roman catholic exaltation of Mary since, in my opinion, is open to interpretation which is not necessarily a good thing. Explain, if you can. Thank You.

]]> By: Rev. Adam Kaloostian http://urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-20932 Rev. Adam Kaloostian Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:31:56 +0000 http://www.start.urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-20932 John, Thanks for your comment. I find it very, very interesting. Here are a couple of things I would encourage you think about: 1- The teachings of Jesus during His earthly life, along with His words (by His Spirit's inspiration) in the rest of the Scripture, themselves emphasize both His incarnation and His death. Jesus talked mostly about His origin, which grounded His character and nature; and also His ultimate earthly purpose, which was to suffer and die for our sins, and be raised. For this reason the creeds (limited for brevity's sake) try not only to say what is true but also what is central. Catechisms and confessions (elsewhere on the site) give more time to exploring other aspects of Jesus' life and teaching. Take for example the Heidelberg Catechism. Its entire third section is taken up with an exposition of the holiness of Christ as reflected in the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, and as such is a wonderfully practical tool for growth in learning about being conformed to the image of Christ. 2- The creeds of course were written to combat particular heresies that were most prominent at the times in which they were written; and for that reason, there will be less in the creeds about matters of consensus. Think of it like this. . .rarely will you ever meet someone, if they believe Jesus was an actual historical figure, who denies that He was a great moral teacher, and that His teaching and living about love and sacrifice were extraordinary and powerful. The rub comes when all these people who say they follow Him (as in today, like Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, the Reformed, Jehovah's Witnesses, many many groups ad infinitum!), all of whom agree on His basic moral stance(s), can radically differ on Who they believe he actually was. For a theological liberal this would be a secondary question, or even an illegitimate one; but for us, it is crucial because without Him as the incarnate and crucified God-man, we have no salvation. Again, thanks for the intriguing comment. -amk John,

Thanks for your comment. I find it very, very interesting. Here are a couple of things I would encourage you think about:

1- The teachings of Jesus during His earthly life, along with His words (by His Spirit’s inspiration) in the rest of the Scripture, themselves emphasize both His incarnation and His death. Jesus talked mostly about His origin, which grounded His character and nature; and also His ultimate earthly purpose, which was to suffer and die for our sins, and be raised.

For this reason the creeds (limited for brevity’s sake) try not only to say what is true but also what is central. Catechisms and confessions (elsewhere on the site) give more time to exploring other aspects of Jesus’ life and teaching.

Take for example the Heidelberg Catechism. Its entire third section is taken up with an exposition of the holiness of Christ as reflected in the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer, and as such is a wonderfully practical tool for growth in learning about being conformed to the image of Christ.

2- The creeds of course were written to combat particular heresies that were most prominent at the times in which they were written; and for that reason, there will be less in the creeds about matters of consensus.

Think of it like this. . .rarely will you ever meet someone, if they believe Jesus was an actual historical figure, who denies that He was a great moral teacher, and that His teaching and living about love and sacrifice were extraordinary and powerful. The rub comes when all these people who say they follow Him (as in today, like Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, the Reformed, Jehovah’s Witnesses, many many groups ad infinitum!), all of whom agree on His basic moral stance(s), can radically differ on Who they believe he actually was. For a theological liberal this would be a secondary question, or even an illegitimate one; but for us, it is crucial because without Him as the incarnate and crucified God-man, we have no salvation.

Again, thanks for the intriguing comment.

-amk

]]> By: John http://urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-20931 John Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:14:12 +0000 http://www.start.urclearning.org/2006/07/09/chalcedonian-creed/#comment-20931 What happened between the virgin birth and death? The creeds seem to ignore the most important part of Jesus -- his life and teaching. What happened between the virgin birth and death? The creeds seem to ignore the most important part of Jesus — his life and teaching.

]]>