Course talk:Carey HIST501/Project 1/Eutychianism

Apparently, adding the expression homoousion, “one substance” in describing the nature of Christ in the Nicene Creed (Shelley, 131) was not sufficient to deter further heresy. People like Eutyches were still convinced that homoousion really means Christ was merely one substance with God the Father but not with man.

The fourth General Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) was able to put this argument to rest by supplementing a new definition to the Nicene Creed. The following statement refuted Eutyches claim and affirmed that Christ’s divinity and humanity were not transformed into something else:

We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…… Acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, or without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved, and coming together to form one person.

The Chalcedonian statement indeed established a clear and firm boundary that said, “Jesus is God; Jesus is human” (Shelley 145-6).

Here is a short history on Euthychian controversy from Theology Academy

_______________________________________

Shelley, Bruce L. 2021. Church History in Plain Language. Edited by Marshall Shelley. Fifth edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic.