Chalcedon followed St Cyril in saying that the acting subject was the divine Logos, the Logos asarkos. This was a clear rejection of Nestorius’ two-sons Christology and an admitted throwback to Apollinaris. This had the effect of viewing the human nature of Christ instrumentally (for a discussion of organon and its uses in Christology, see Anatolios, 71).. The human nature on this model cannot act of its own. It has no acting principle. Just how the Logos acts upon the human nature instrumentally is less clear, but the main point is already established. Further, as Anchoretic apologists are wont to point out: all of these fathers interpreted the union in divinization models. I think they are correct with that reading, though they are largely unaware of the problems it entails.
Does this prove the death knell to Reformed Protestantism? It is true that the Chalcedonian tradition operated off of divinization models. Further, a strict divinization soteriology is at odds with forensic justification. How can Protestantism be salvaged? Protestants would be wise to avoid attaching themselves blindly to creeds. We love to spout “sola scriptura” but few of us really know how that helps us. I will try to show. Before someone accuses me of rejecting the creed, I accept what Chalcedon coherently delivers: Christ had a two-ness element and he did represent humanity fully. I reject the divinization presuppositions behind this model and will show how these presuppositions are in tension one with another.
1. Is the acting subject really the Logos asarkos or is it the God-man? Formally, Cyrillians say the former, but then when we talk about the communication of attributes, we notice a subtle shift to the latter, and the reason is obvious: any communication of human attributes to the Logos Asarkos destroys impassibility; therefore, the communicatio is simply the transfer of some divine attributes to the human side of the God-human Jesus. But problems remain: what right do they have to shift terms midway in the debate?
2. Apropos of (1), did God die on the cross? Anchorites love to make fun of RC Sproul Jr on this one, and true, I don’t think he really understands the Patristic issues in the debate, but any answer to this question will be a bad answer–at least while we are still on this plane of presuppositions. On their gloss, Did God-the-Logos-Asarkos experience death on the cross? If so, how do you maintain your doctrine of impassibility? Or did God-the-divine-human die on the cross, with only the human nature experiencing death? If the latter, can we really say that God died? If not, how are you different from Sproul? Further, how is this different from the charges that Reformed soteriology is Nestorian? On both glosses, something is affirmed as true which is not true of the taxonomy.
3. How does the Logos act instrumentally upon the human nature of Christ? Anatolios attacks Grillmeyer’s contention that the Logos acts mechanistically, and perhaps Grillmeyer’s phrasing is a bit crude, but it’s hard to see any other alternative. If the human nature of Christ does not have a self-determining principle, which it mustn’t if we are to avoid Nestorianism, and the only acting principle is the Logos asarkos, making the human body the instrument (organon, pace Athanasius et al), then how are we to avoid Grillmeyer’s conclusion: the Logos acts mechanistically upon the human nature/body?
4. If (3) then we have precisely the thesis that they attack Calvinists of.
5. If (4), how is the 6th Ecumenical Council (Dyotheletism) not Nestorian? Remember, in order to avoid Nestorianism, the Cyrillenes insisted that the human nature of Christ had no self-activating principle. By the time of the 6th Council, however, we are moving closer to that position. If the human nature has a will that always acts in synergy with the divine will, how is this not a self-activating principle?
6. Further reflections on (5): modern understandings of the human person, though they may not always be biblical, are the way we use the term person today. Such a use, however, appears to posit a principle of emotional maturation and self-activation in that what it means to be human. Further, the Jesus in the New Testament appears as a guy who underwent emotional maturation (grow in the knowledge of God, etc) and acted in the power of the Holy Spirit (of course, all the while remaining of one nature with the Father).
Is there a way out? I think so, and I think we can still maintain the same truths that Chalcedon wants to. In a future post I hope to reconstruct the doctrine of the Logos asarkos as the Logos incarnandus. In any case, if any Calvinist is being attacked by Anchorites on these points, then hopefully this post will provide a handy cheat sheet.