|
An anonymous critic of the Free Church of
Scotland accused their General Assembly of having "less than pure
spiritual motives" when it condemned Theonomy as contrary to
Scripture and the Westminster Standards.
In response, the question needs to be
asked, Has there ever been an ecclesiastical assembly that was not
somewhat colored by political factors and sensitivity to the world?
All true Christians follow the Christology of the first four Ecumenical Councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. We believe that the Holy Spirit guided the theologians of the Church in their understanding of Scripture. But we may be ignorant of the political strife that often led to these conclusions.
The very first Ecumenical Council, convened in A.D. 325, at Nicea by the Emperor Constantine, was called fundamentally for the purpose of quashing political unrest. Concern for doctrinal soundness was certainly an issue, but the impetus was political: Constantine needed a united Church within a united Empire. God in his sovereignty overrode the influences of Arianism, which early on had the support of the Emperor, but God used the political intrigues of men to do so.
One may also cite the role of the granddaughter of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I,
Pulcheria (sometimes spelled Pulcharia), in both the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon.
The Third Ecumenical Council, convened in A.D. 431, at Ephesus, gave the Church a clearer understanding of the Person of Christ. This Council rejected the theology of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius. Nestorius had so divided the two natures in Christ as to make our Lord two persons, in effect, teaching that the Lord Jesus was only a man with the divinity abiding in him.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council, convened in A.D. 451, at Chalcedon, gave us the definitive Christology of Christianity by reaffirming the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius and rejecting the doctrine of Euthycius, who had taught that "before the union (the incarnation) there were the two natures, divine and human, but that after the union (the incarnation) the two so blended that there was only one nature, and that was fully divine." [Kenneth Scott Latourette,
A History of Christianity, (Harper & Brothers: New York), 1953, p. 170]
What prompted the Third Ecumenical Council was the political chicanery of the Regent,
Pulcheria, elder sister of the Emperor Theodosius II (after his death in A.D. 450, Empress of the Eastern Empire). The Patriarch Nestorius had opposed this powerful woman and her glorification of the Virgin Mary.
Pulcheria was a devotee of the
worship of Mary and pushed for a more powerful role for women in the Church. She enlisted the help of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and, along with her brother, called the Third Ecumenical Council.
The Council of Chalcedon can also be traced back to Pulcheria's Byzantine political intrigues. Needing recognition for the freshly crowned Emperor, her new husband, the Tribune Marcian (with whom,
in keeping with her hyperdoulia of the ever-virgin Mary, she never had sexual
intercourse), Pulcheria sought the support of the Patriarch of the West, Pope Leo I of Rome. Leo's Christology, contained in his so-called
Tome, lies at the heart of Chalcedon's Christological formulae. Leo's Christology was biblical and so was the decision reached in
A.D. 451, but none of these outcomes would have taken place without the plotting of Saint
Pulcheria.
Do these intrigues undermine the legitimate biblical findings of these Councils?
No, God has always worked his good and holy will through frail and sinful
human beings. Such, too, were our Lord's holy apostles. Only the
Lord Jesus was free from sin.
Bob
Vincent |
|