CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

FINAL EXAM

NATHAN D. MARCH

DR. GÖSTA HALLONSTEN

TRS620 INTRO TO PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

05 MAY 2004

1. Write two pages of commentary on the attached text. Situate the text in its historical context, comment upon the structure of the text and give an interpretation of the part of the text that offers a specific solution to the controversy in question.

The text is from the Council of Chalcedon (451) which sought to definitively resolve the Christological controversy that gradually emerged during the fourth and fifth centuries.  The final resolution was, from the point of view of ecclesial politics as well as theology, a compromise between the great Churches and their different traditions and political interests.[1] Kelly remarks that, “At no point in the evolution of the Church’s theology have fundamental issues been so mixed up with the clash of politics and personalities.”[2] Thus to understand the text produced by the council it must be situated within the context of the Christological controversies of that time with respect not only to dogmatic development but also to the authors who contributed to the most important formulae.[3]

The Christological controversy which emerged during the fourth century centered on two main groups. The Alexandrian school, exemplified by Athanasius and later Cyril of Alexandria, expressed the unity of divinity and humanity in Jesus as analogous to the unity of body and soul in humans with the Logos-sarx Christological model. In contrast, the Antiochene school, exemplified by Theodore of Mopsuestia, expressed a distinction between the two nature of Christ, in order to preserve the integrity of his humanity, with the Logos-anthropos Christological model. The tensions between these two groups came to head at the council of Ephesus (431) which condemned Nestorius and ratified the Alexandrian position but produced no new creed or Christological formula. Attempting to heal the deep divisions which persisted after the council, John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria agreed on the Formulary of Reunion (433) which emphasized the double consubstantiality of Christ and asserted Cyril’s confession of “One Lord.” [4] The relatively short period of peace ended when Cyril died (444) and his successor Dioscorus, who rejected the two-nature terminology and Formula of Reunion, together with Emperor Theodosius, followed the condemned of Monophysitism, by the synod of Constantinople under Flavian (448), with the so-called “Robber Synod” of Ephesus (449) which supported Eutyches.[5] Following the death of Theodosius (450), Emperor Marcian convened the Council of Chalcedon (451) at the request of Pope Leo with the intent of securing unity in the empire.[6]

The document approved by the council is structured as follows: an introduction justifying the intention of the Council that, “no one should disagree with his neighbor regarding religious doctrines but that the proclamation of the truth would be uniformly presented”; a renewal, to “drive off erroneous doctrines,” of “the unerring creed of the fathers,”[7] the “creed of the 318” (Nicea), the “creed of the 150” (Constantinople) and the decisions “from the sacred synod which took place formerly at Ephesus”; the ratification of “the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril” against Nestorius and the letter of Pope Leo[8] “to put down Eutyches’s evil mindedness”; followed by the definition of the council’s teaching; ending with the decree that “no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise.”

Kelly notes that the final shape of the definition is “a mosaic of excerpts” from various sources including: Cyril’s letters, Pope Leo’s Tome, the Formulary of Reunion, and Flavian’s profession of faith from the Standing Synod in Constantinople (448).[9] The first line which confesses “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity,” is from the Formulary of Reunion.[10] The word “same” is used seven times in the definition and highlights the unity of Christ. The formulation “consubstantial with the Father” is accepted from Nicea, but the following statement that he is “consubstantial with us” is new; together they stress both the divinity and humanity of Christ. The council confirms the Marian title of theotokos “with respect to his humanity”. The acknowledgement of “two natures,” adapted from Leo’s letter to Flavian, that “come together into a single person,” clearly rejects monophysitism while supporting the Antiochene position.[11] The four denials that the natures undergo confussion, change, division and separation clearly are directed against monophysitism and Nestorianism respectively.[12]

The council had sought to bring peace to the empire which was heavily divided by the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches.  Chalcedon, however, failed to bring permenant peace. Kelly notes that while the West remained loyal to the council, there was immediate hostile reaction in the East that would last for centuries.[13] The Christological controversies that first resulted in the divisions persist to the present day.

2. Select two important theological themes in the writings of St. Augustine and describe his contribution to those two themes on not more than two pages.

The doctrines of original sin and grace were significant developments in the history of Christian thought that where closely related in the mind of Augustine. Much of Augustine’s life was devoted to these problems. As a young man he wrestled with Mani’s teachings on evil which eventually led to his conversion to Christianity. Later, the conflict with Pelagius gave him opportunity to further develop his position on grace.

Manichaeism was a syncretistic religion founded by Mani c.216 that embodied elements of Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.[14] Similar to Gnosticism, it was a kind of gnosis, offering salvation by knowledge, centered on the origin of evil. Mani posited a radical dualism that taught that reality consisted of two great forces eternally opposed to each other in continual cosmic conflict: Good and Evil.[15] He believed the only satisfactory answer to the problem of evil was that it was an ineradicable force inherent in the physicality of the material world.[16] Man exists tragically involved in the material order.[17] Manichees argued against the Christian conception of God stating that God could not be absolute Goodness and the source of the Creation if evil existed in the world.[18]

At the age of 29 while in Carthage, Augustine met Faustus who was “held in high respect by the Manichees.”[19] Although he admired his eloquence he, “came to discern his doctrine to diverge from the truth.”[20] Augustine energetically applied himself to find decisive arguments to disprove the Manichees. In Book V of the Confessions, while still sympathetic of Manichaeism he states, “I believed that evil is a kind of material substance.”[21] However, by Book VII he has changed his opinion and concludes that for God, “evil does not exist at all.”[22] In the Enchiridion he accounts for the cause of evil as “falling away from the unchangeable good of a being made good but changeable.”[23] Thus, Augustine’s solution to the problem of evil was to define evil as a privation, the privation of the good that should be in a thing.  In his account, God “judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit evil to exist.”[24]

The development of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin should be understood against the backdrop of the Pauline renaissance that was occurring around the time he wrote. Underlying his doctrine are the Pauline theme of the universal condemnation of mankind (Rom 3:9-10) and the comparison between Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12-21). For Augustine, Adam is not a metaphor; he is a real person, from whom sin enters the world. The freedom possessed by Adam is not the inability to sin but rather the ability not to sin.[25] Augustine assesses human nature prior to the fall positively; man’s will was devoted to carrying out the commands of God.[26] According to Scripture, Adam sinned and he alone was responsible for it; God could not be blamed.[27] Augustine accounts for Adam’s sin through the weakness of his changeableness.[28] After the first sin of Adam, “the whole race of which he was the root was corrupted with him, and thereby subjected to the penalty of death.”[29] Augustine had no doubt of the reality of original sin and taught that as a consequence human nature had been terribly scarred.[30] As a result sinful man is hamstrung by selfishness from the moment of infancy; he is the prisoner of habits which are second nature to him.[31] Man in and of himself is powerless to do good.

Augustine’s doctrine of original sin presents a rather pessimistic view. Yet he states, “such a nature, in the midst of all its evils, could not lose the craving after happiness.”[32] Thus, Chadwick remarks, “Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of man’s moral being required a balancing emphasis on the power of necessity of grace.”[33] Without grace, it would be impossible to even aspire to do good. For Augustine, grace is the inner force which operates in men’s hearts, initiating in the soul whatever good they aspire to do.[34] “For it is God who works in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his own good pleasure.” (Phil 2:13)[35] Augustine holds that man is always free but his choices are influenced by his state.[36] By grace God works through each human will, accommodating itself to the particular circumstances, and effecting the free and spontaneous willing of what is good.[37] For Augustine this grace is a free gift from God, it cannot be earned by the good deeds of men.[38] Nothing in man, past, present or future, can be the moving or meritous cause of God’s election.[39] It is totally up to God to determine who shall receive grace and who shall not.[40] This led Augustine to defend the doctrine of eternal predestination. In order to do so he had to appeal to partial selections of texts in Scripture and had to creatively interpret others that did not fit his purpose.[41] Kelly notes that “he has to twist the text ‘God wills all men to be saved’ making it mean that he wills the salvation of all the elect.”[42] The point for Augustine however, was that grace was God’s initiative not ours. Accordingly, God has mercy on those whom he wishes to have mercy.

ENDNOTES