Creed of Chalcedon

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the unity, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Introduction to the Creed of Chalcedon

The Creed of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, is not mentioned by name in any of our three forms of unity, but the doctrine set forth in it is clearly embodied in Article 19 of our Confession of Faith. It constitutes an important part of our ecumenical heritage.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon settled the controversies concerning the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ and established confessionally the truths of the unity of the divine person and the union and distinction of the divine and human natures of Christ.

It condemned especially the error of Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine person in Christ; the error of Apollinarianism, which denied the completeness of Christ’s human nature; and the error known as Eutychianism, which denied the duality and distinction of the divine and human natures of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What was confessionally established at Chalcedon concerning the person and natures of Christ has continued to be the confession of the church catholic or universal ever since that time.
The Creed of Chalcedon: Historical Notes

1. The significant point of the Creed

The Creed of Chalcedon is that Christ is true God and true man united in one person, the person of the Son of God in the Trinity. It therefore answers the question, who is Jesus Christ, with precision. Of special significance are the four terms respecting the union of the two natures of Christ and their relationship: inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. By this is meant something specific which is as follows:

  • Inconfusedly or without mixture Has in view the truth that the divine nature and human nature of Christ are not mixed or confused together so as to become some third kind of being neither divine nor human. Christ has two natures not one. The error in view is called monophysitism, the idea of a God-man, if by the term is meant a mixture of the two natures. By implication the statement also rejects the notion that Jesus being a man evolved into a kind of God consciousness and sense of divinity. The human and divine natures are never mixed or confused. Jesus always possessed both the divine from eternity and the human from the moment of his conception.
  • Unchangeably or without change Has in view the truth that neither the divine nature nor the human nature was essentially changed in any way by the union of the two natures in the people of the Son of God. Eternally the Son, Jesus, is God and is eternal, infinite, and almighty according to the divine nature. The union of the Son with the Human nature he assumed, when he took on him the form of a servant and was made man, Philippians 2:7, did not involve a change in the divine nature or essence. Likewise the human nature from the moment of its assumption by the Son of God remained a true, complete human nature which is finite and limited as a creature. It was also a sinless human nature standing at the center of the line of God's covenant, and a weakened human nature under the judgment of god for our sins. By his resurrection and ascension Jesus has now glorified the human nature but it remains a true human nature also in eternal glory.
  • Indivisibly or without division Has in view the truth that each nature is full and complete without being divided into parts, that the son of god did not therefore assume a partial human nature such as a human body without a true human soul, mind, heart and will. It has in view the perfect completeness of each nature so that Jesus the Son of God is very God and very man. This was an answer to some of the false constructions as to the union of the two natures.
  • Inseparably or without separation Has in view the truth that while the divine did not become human nor the human become divine that there was by unity of person an inner connection between them which was constant and which continues in Jesus Christ. By this inseparable connection Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation and manifestation of the name of God and his glory as the God of our salvation John 17:4-7, 26. By it also The Son of God in his finite human nature was enabled to sustain in body and soul the infinite eternal wrath of God against sin so as to deliver his people from it and rise in power from the dead. Romans 1:3,4; Isaiah 53:4, 6,10

2. The use of the term "Mother of God" in the Creed of Chalcedon

The creed also uses the term "Mother of God" concerning the Virgin Mary. In the creed itself it should be noted the term is directly limited by the words "according to the human nature. " The creed does not teach that Mary is the mother of the divine nature. The Creed likewise explicitly teaches that the person of the Son of God is "begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead." It is the human nature which the Son of God assumed which is alone ascribed unto Mary from whom, after the flesh, the Savior was descended and born.

The term itself, while it has given rise to Mary worship in both the Eastern church and western Romanism, has also a specific purpose in the creed. Against the error of Nestorius who taught two distinct persons, a human and divine, it was necessary to maintain that it was truly the Son of God united to the human nature who was born of Mary. Mary did therefore carry in her womb the Son of God united to the human nature, and in that sense only may be said to be the mother of God, when she brought forth her first born son after the flesh and laid him in a manger, Luke 2:7.

The Son of God did not come upon the man Jesus as a distinct human person. Nor did the Son of God leave Jesus on the cross in His suffering and death. Both of these errors have repeatedly troubled the Christian church and are a denial of Jesus Christ as the true Savior. It belongs to certain Gnostic heresies, already found in the early church, with which John contends in I John 4:1-4. The denial of the true incarnation of the Son of God in the human nature is according to I John 4:3 of the spirit of Antichrist. This corrupt error, in a garbled form from the Nestorian sect, has also made its way into the Koran. It is not authentic Christian doctrine.

At the same time the perversion of the role of Mary which developed in both East and West justly gives rise to reservations about this expression however it is limited. It is, in part, for this reason that the creed is not named in the Confession of Faith. The sound doctrine of the creed is taken up in the Confession of Faith, rather than the creed itself.
For Further Study

For further study see also the other ecumenical creeds:

The Confession of Faith also addresses the issues set forth in the Creed of Chalcedon in articles 18-21

The issue of Mary worship occasioned by the expression, "Mother of God," is addressed in the Confession of Faith, Article 26, on Christ's Intercession and in the following article:
Top