Cancel Culture at Chalcedon

Well, welcome to the driving line. I've got about 370 miles to go today until I get home. I'm looking forward to that but I wonder you want to touch on some Some more issues that are being discussed online.

Colossians 2:9 and the Fullness of Deity in Christ

And I want to start with a verse that I have recommended to people for many decades that they add to their memorization list for many reasons, but Especially if you're dealing with subordinationist, Jehovah's Witnesses, people like that.

And that is Colossians 2 .9. And now of course comes after 2 .8, which is a warning against being taken captive by philosophy and men's traditions. And it gives the reason for that Hati enauto katoikai ponta pleroma tes theate tas samatikos for in him is Dwelling all the fullness of deity in bodily form and.

It is hard to escape the reality that Paul is. Either directly at that time because there was already this teaching coming from the East which would be very early or even prophetically Warning of what would come dealing with Sort of a preemptive strike against what is going to be the greatest Enemy and challenge to the church in the early centuries that of course is the heresy of Gnosticism, the religion of Gnosticism.

And.

There in in one sentence you have The assertion that the reason that all of man's knowledge, philosophy, traditions, beliefs are to be subject to Christ, which sometimes embarrasses Christians to say Really does.

Let's just be honest. There are Christians who are embarrassed when we say Jesus Christ is Lord all of human knowledge is To be under his lordship it will only Result in human flourishing when that knowledge is ordered in light of Christ and in light of his Lordship and his person that embarrasses people but The reason is given right here for in him is dwelling all the fullness of deity in bodily form That which makes God, God.

It's not Godhead It's deity that which makes God, God. Thyatatos is not the same as Thyat which is used over Romans 120 they're different words and Thyatatos is much more specific and it is said that all the fullness of deity is dwelling in him in bodily form.

Now I I've read lots commentaries on this text, and I know that there are some other takes but in light of Where Colossians 2 9 fits in the whole polemic of Colossians, I think the only way really to consistently interpret it is.

To.

Go ahead and Put emphasis upon the fact that he says katoikai. He is he says is dwelling. Not just in some gnomic sense but post-resurrection. All the fullness of that which makes God, God is dwelling in Christ.

Somaticos. Now again some people Understand somaticos is really or something, but I think the emphasis has to be seen in the polemic as being the physic the physicality of the resurrection. Christ is still the God-man.

He has not laid aside that perfect human nature that he took on freely in the incarnation and He continues dwelling in that God-man state. Even in that day and therefore is the standard of all things.

I mean if he is the fullness of deity dwelling in bodily form that need to understand that is about as blatant blunt. It's blunt force trauma to the head of Gnosticism, I guess. Be the way to put it it is a the whole concept of Yaldabaoth and Sophia and the eons and the play Roma and all of that is obliterated.

Just nuked.

I'm not sure we can use that term right now, but um Done away with by the assertion that that everything that makes God God the highest level of the of the play Roma is Dwelling bodily in Christ. I mean that is totally and completely Outside the realm of possibility for The Gnostics and so that is a you you cannot affirm what the Apostle says and Continue to hold on to any type of Gnostic concept at all.

So Here you have in this Epistle to the church at Colossae a description of Christ post-resurrection That is so central to Why we say that Christ has to be Lord of human knowledge and why we subject all forms of human philosophy.

Which would include all forms of human philosophy that existed prior to Christ to Christ and to his lordship and to his sovereignty. Absolutely necessary because he is not merely some.

A.

Secondary created creature. No matter how exalted all the play Roma. The fullness of That which makes God God is dwelling in him in bodily form. He is the creator He took on human flesh He has not abandoned that flesh He has not ceased being the God man.

Now I.

Wasn't going to mention this but I would just I'll just point out that that seems really honestly to cause some serious problems for people who try to force.

Aristotle's.

Categories on the Christian God. And It would seem to cause the problems for people who are today just obliterating the clear distinctions between father son and spirit. Notice to their deity not as to the fact that each described as Yahweh their full full participation the divine being but the fact that the Bible differentiates between them and.

Simply to say that well, the Sun is incarnate and appropriations and no the Sun not only became incarnate and took on a perfect human nature. But it is through Him it is in him Ephesians 1. In him in him in the beloved in him over and over and over again in Christ.

Our union with God is Through the God man through the incarnation through the Sun in a way that is not the same as with the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit may entwine us and That's unique to the Spirit in that sense.

But the union is with Christ The God man, that's why he has to remain the God man because the people of God are united to God in this.

Astonishing.

Fulfillment of Emmanuel in the Old Testament God with us and so Here you have it laid out in in this tremendous Verse that teaches deity of Christ teaches the humanity of Christ the continuing reality of incarnation Even in the exalted state where he rules and reigns and Is the standard of all human?

Knowledge and predication and and everything else. It's a it's an incredible passage. It's nice and nice and short to memorize. But there's obviously a whole lot behind it, especially when you Study Gnosticism.

You see the terms that play Roma you see Eon all through Colossians and and the specific utilization that same terminology by the Gnostics in the first number of centuries of the history of the Christian Church.

So.

With that we We we have a biblical text we have an in something that is they honest us. It is God breathed. What is God breathed Hathi and Alto Katoikai? Pond drop play Roma taste they are theta somatic.

Oh, that is God breathe that exists on a level of authority that.

No human.

Philosopher system of philosophy system of theology can ever approach if if if we believe in inspiration if we believe which is himself taught on That particular subject if we believe as he did that this is God speaking Then we have to confess the unique nature of the authority of those words in that original language and That has to be the bulwark the foundation the ground.

For all the affirmations that we make now if we say that we must interpret Those Greek words in the light of any kind of external System Then the question becomes well. Then that which is they honest us is dependent upon this system that you are promoting.

And.

The system therefore must have the same or higher if possible level of authority. This is where the issue of solo scriptura tota scriptura scriptural sufficiency all Comes together now. That is just one of many texts not only in Colossians, but throughout the New Testament that Have been provided to us that give us Graciously Inspired revelation concerning the nature of our God.

That he has since he has chosen to reveal this to us then we believe there is a reason Why he has done so. He wants us to know these truths about himself So that we may worship him right now. Question we immediately have to ask is Let's say you live in The year 400.

Okay, you've already got the council and I see you. You've pretty much got the New Testament down pat now.

Could you?

What would have to happen? for you to come to believe that. What would be appropriate to worship God now will not be appropriate? 800 years in the future. Well, you'd have to believe that there are either things that scripture is not sufficient to Communicate so it's gonna be more scripture or more revelation or something.

A new office an office in the church that provides Divinely inspired commentary something like that. Or there's going to be need to be some type of development of a tradition that Expands upon these things so someone living in the year 1200 can worship God more fully and more properly than the person living in 400 and.

Where what what would that be?

Where can that come from is? Really an important question. It's it's a question that unfortunately most Reformed folks haven't thought a lot about if they have not taken the time to read a lot of church history in regards to the conflicts that We have had with Rome and the issue of tradition and things like that.

Cancel Culture, Church History, and Chalcedon

Okay, so what I saw that I wanted to respond to today.

Was.

And I was looking at it last night. I wasn't able to really see who was. I don't know who was posting. What?

But I.

Was seeing more cancellation more, you know nastiness online. There are a lot of people today who are just dismissing me as a Trinitarian heretic. They clearly have not listened to anything that I've said they've not read any of my works but they Trust and believe what other people say Online.

So if a Trusted voice says this guy is gone off the rails and they don't care to check these things out for themselves and I was.

Thinking.

About how this has happened over and over again in church history. You you cannot Avoid the reality that especially as.

The.

Church became more and more Connected to the state as sacralism grew and grew. And not not a not a proper secularism a not because there is a wide Movement of the Spirit of God drawing people to personal faith in Jesus Christ.

But it's becoming Advantageous it's becoming cultural to be a Christian. There's a huge difference between those two two things and You see situation of situation. So let's let's talk specifically because this this is what is about it.

I'll make both applications at some point. I'm not sure if it was on the dividing line or maybe one of my students in the early church history class. Maybe there was a spy or maybe someone just mentioned it or something but someone with a with a sense of shock made reference to the fact that I said that the Council of the Decree of Chalcedon was a Compromised document.

That was.

Influenced by politics and Their conclusion was well that must be is wrong and that must mean he's rejecting Chalcedonian Christology. You know it and it's it's and again. There's just gonna be there's just so many people No, Doug Wilson deals with this I deal with this there's so many people who are just so prejudiced and so biased and Filled with so much animus that it doesn't matter what I say it doesn't matter what context it doesn't matter the facts are.

They're gonna believe whatever is the most negative possible thing. And then repeat that to others. Which is why this in a slander is such a sin anyway, I did say that in early church history when we talked about Council of Chalcedon and I think I said it a few weeks ago on the dividing line as well.

But I said I'd really like to do a whole lot more Do a whole discussion on the Council of Chalcedon because if I'd like to do And I don't I don't want to promise I don't want to promise this at any point in time right now, but what I'd love to do on the big board in the big studio is to put the the actual creedal statement and then color code the sections as To which of the groups That I represented in the council would be amenable to that that this would represent their position and Which groups would find that to be one of their problematic statements so that then you know right afterwards?

There's another statement where they're sort of thrown a bone and and Talk about Antioch, Alexandria Talk about Pope Leo and The friends of Eutychians, of course, the Nestorians the Apollinarians and Talk about The fact that for example Chalcedon did not unify the church.

There are monophysite communities to this day that reject the Council of Chalcedon. Then again neither did Nicaea. In fact, Nicaea had the opposite effect initially.

But.

It would be really interesting to just go okay. This side was saying Fusus means this and this side was saying Apostasis means this and and so this side had to change their views and this side was trying to defend Cyril of Alexandria and and in the middle of all this you've got the Emperor in Constantinople, and that's connected with the politics of Constantinople versus Alexandria, which is just if you want if you want cancellation.

Oh goodness. Look at how Cyril of Alexandria or his monks Treated well, they beat Flavian to death. They beat the the deposed Bishop of Constantinople to death. Okay, I mean they literally beat him to death and I'm not talking I'm not talking they Abused him in social media.

I'm talking they took their fists and rocks and clubs and whatever and beat him till he died. Physically, okay blood, gore, the whole nine yards. So so the the animosity between Alexandria and Constantinople is Astonishing and and then the Emperor the head of the Empire now is in Constantinople not Rome.

Rome's in the you know. It's in the final stages of falling depending on exactly where you where you date that but 410s already happened. The Lyric is already coming on and so You've got Rome and Constantinople they're Fighting with each other hence you got Canon 28 of Council of Calstone which Rome never accepted which basically says that They're all equals which opens the door for Eventually since it says the Pope of old Rome had this authority because it was the chief city of the Empire.

Well now it's not the chief city of the Empire. So what happens now? That opens the whole question there. Leo is defending papal primacy. He views himself as the infallible Vicar of Christ. He and some people would identify Leo as the first true Pope.

Some others would say Gregory but Leo certainly has a significantly more developed concept of papal supremacy and papal primacy in Doctrinal authority and ecclesiastical authority than even Stephen had you know in the days of Cyprian and and things like that.

So.

You've got that tension and you get a tension. Constantinople and Alexandria. Going on so between the Alexandrian view of Christ which tends toward Eutyches and.

The.

Antioch view which tends toward Nestorius and So the you've got and you've got Variations amongst them. I mean there's there's not absolute unanimity amongst guys, Antioch Alexandria people switch sides and.

So there's a lot of stuff going on. At the Council of Calstone there really really is. So no one can dispute that. I Think a bunch of people that were liking these tweets and I just can't believe it. I really wonder how many of them Know any of the major players any of the major views any of the background any of the interaction.

How many of them have read Leo's Tome? You know, I really really wonder how many of them have and so if you're if you're You know writing about how whites become a heretic. And you haven't read any of that stuff.

Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about. You really don't. You're clueless. Let's do it. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself because there is absolutely positively No way on God's green earth that you can dispute the reality of the fact that there were all sorts of political and political not only Within the church, but externally with the Empire.

I mean You know the Emperor in Constantinople that calls the council. It's you cannot deny the fact that these realities existed. It's just it's a fact.

So.

So I'm I'm a heretic for stating a fact.

Really?

Hmm, okay. But what this illustrates is first of all, they're the the amount of cancellation That went on for decades. What happened to John Chrysostom there in Constantinople because the Alexandrians and and the back-and-forth between those two seas and You know, we we do it in social media now Chrysostom lost his life Because of it and these are Christians betraying Christians.

That's the sad part. This there's nothing new and What would happen is? You know, I've just I've said this more than once I've never been a fan of Cyril of Alexandria. I really haven't obviously a brilliant mind, but Just just really one of the most unlikable characters in early church history and You look at how he and his people Dealt with Constantinople and and people that would represent other perspectives and the kind of nasty Derangement syndrome stuff that we're seeing online today.

It's been going on for a long long time long long.

Just I.

Just I was thinking about the fact that you know, I commented on this. But that when Thomas More and Martin Luther went at each other Someone estimated that between the two of them. They used Every possible Latin term for excrement it's never been thought of but the mind of man of each other.

It's been nasty for a long time and I keep that in mind as as people Won't represent me accurately. Well, well, you know, I've been talking about this stuff for decades. They don't care or they're constantly trying to well I you said this at one point now you say this and and they have no interest whatsoever in fairness or balance.

They're just filled with animus. Sometimes they're filled with jealousy is what they're filled. They think they should be doing the stuff I've gotten to do.

But.

You just. When that happens, I'm just reminded that It comes to the territory ain't the first time. Shouldn't be that way. I I I get it. It shouldn't be that way, but it is it is that's that's the reality and.

So.

That sort of helps to deal with it because you know. A lot of what's coming at me is coming from my own group. The people are supposed to be my buds people that have been people that have Supported me in the past and we've worked together and taught in their churches and taught in their schools and now they're the ones doing the cancellation and.

It's like.

Yep.

That's not new not first time that's happened. You you can go back in church history that is one of the blessings or curses depending how you want to look at it of being a church history professor is.

Yep. Yep. Yep we've seen this before and. So yeah, the cancellation thing nothing new. Secondly. When I was in seminary when I was doing I Took a systematic theology class at Fuller Theological Seminary probably 1984.

I would say no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it can't be.

1988 and.

I was now my systematic theology professor was an interesting fellow very sharp guy. He was good at telling you what people in the past believed but not so good at telling you what he himself believed.

It was more of a history of theology than an actual systematic theology class, but I made the best of it. I had learned to do that by that point in time and.

I.

Wrote a paper in that class and I had to ask him if I could write it longer than what was required or limitations and things like that and.

So I.

Wrote the Trinity the definition of calisthenon and oneness theology. Trinity the definition of calisthenon and oneness theology.

And.

When I Now I had taken church history in fact by then I'd probably taken the class three different times because I enjoyed the teacher so much. But but when you're covering so much space and I had this frustration Two weekends ago when I when I taught Early church history you there's just so I didn't even get to cover John Chrysostom almost at all and we sort of had to rush toward the end and That's just what happens when you do these types of classes and that was types of classes I had back then as well.

Dr. Feldman my professor would fly in and We'd only have so much time. Anyway, uh, I When I wrote that paper I simply imbibed a View and a concept regarding Creeds ecumenical creeds, you know, it was like well, they just sort of have this Special authority you see because they're ecumenical and I knew like for example that Nicaea had had to fight for acceptance and You know, I understood that.

But I.

Hadn't really gotten to the point of recognizing that. You know, I hadn't been forced yet because I wasn't dealing with Roman Catholicism yet to think through ultimate sources of authority.

And.

So it's it's real easy to just go well. You know, I had heard Norm Geisler Say something about the first seven ecumenical councils. It's like oh, well, that sounds like we're supposed to just go. Yeah, the first seven ecumenical councils.

Didn't really know what they were about hadn't read much about them never thought about the relationship of scriptural authority to Church authority and what churches are behind these things any of that kind of stuff.

We just hadn't even Just didn't even enter the end of the mind really it's just well the recumenal councils and we accept them and we go from there and so I Wasn't looking at the Council of Chalcedon historically my paper really focused on Key biblical texts that addressed the important issues that were raised by Chalcedon In regards to the relationship of Divine and human natures in in Jesus one person two natures.

What does that mean? What's the hypothetic union? How does this how is this related to Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, etc, etc, especially in Historias? Really didn't have any Bead at that point in time on Leo's Tome or what that would.

How that's relevant and how important it is things like that at all but I think that's how the vast majority of Protestant evangelicals when they are even aware of Okay, Council of Chalcedon, 4th to 1, middle of 5th century.

Okay.

How these are related let alone any idea of the background and and hence. When I've gotten in trouble now for saying that the the proper authority of any of these councils has to be derived from its fidelity description.

And the problem is if you create a system based upon some type of external development of theology over time and then say this must now be the lens through which you interpret scripture, then you don't seem to realize.

You.

You're not going to be able to hold to Sola Scriptura. Not consistently anyways. I know lots of people who have never been pushed. They've never been put in a position of Being forced to see that. That they're functioning, they're functioning inconsistently.

But I'm put in that position every time I walk on the debate stage.

That's.

That's what I do and so I have to think those things through and dealing with Roman Catholicism especially and their sharp apologists. Gave me the opportunity to do that. And so when when people lose their minds on social media and and go.

He's gonna abandon Chalcedon. Well.

What is the essence of Chalcedon that a true believer is? Holding to and why? When I when I first heard about it when I first dealt with it I didn't have the right reasons for Holding to Chalcedon. But I do now and so.

You go through each of those phrases and The the weight of the authority does not come from the council. It comes from all right.

Of.

Jesus or Paul for example. Describes, you know, he uses terminology. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. How do you crucify the Lord of Glory? Crucifixion is a physical act. It takes place in time in history.

The Lord of Glory. That's that's a exalted term for Christ for for deity. So so here you have Paul functioning.

In a.

Chalcedonian manner and it's that kind of They are new staffs revelation that has to be seen as foundational and Determinative for the truthfulness of the words of Chalcedon not the other way around and as soon as you say no You start with Chalcedon and that's how you understand those words.

You no longer believe in any form of Sola Scriptura at all. You don't. You may not know it yet. You may not realize. You've punched your ticket across the Tiber or across the Bosporus or at least to someplace in.

England.

But you have You just you just don't you haven't been put in the position. You have not been placed in the pressure cooker the pressure cooker Demonstrates where the inconsistencies are the pressure cooker demonstrates where you're literally contradicting yourself and so People lose their mind when I I make a completely indisputable Unremarkable comment about the historical reality of the Council of Castle.

What are those people going to do? When they run into someone Who's seeking to destroy their faith that knows the same things I know cuz It's it's public knowledge. It's out there. You may not know it, but it's public knowledge.

You got to deal with it. And what if they want to use it to destroy their faith where they can do that? I don't know. I don't know but These are the these are I Fully understand why a lot of folks are like, you know, this seems like it's just getting so complicated.

Well It's not so much that it's complicated it's that you need to you need to know what has happened in the past and why it happened and It does help a lot a lot a lot a lot To have that basic knowledge of church history so you can at least put yourself in the context so as to understand Where the the terminology you're using came from we use so much Specific language that was defined as a part of church history.

And if we don't we don't know that.

Then.

We can't really examine What it is that May be under dispute today. We may be having a big dispute today and not realize this has been disputed 47 times before for crying out loud. Don't you think it's important to know how they handled it in the past?

Well for a lot of folks not so much, but it is important. I think to all of us so there you go, there's. There's a lengthy I don't even know how lengthy that was 39 minutes not as long as yesterday, but 40 minute long discussion a little jaunt through church history at.

Well, it's not 75 miles per hour. I had to go through some construction zones. There was going pretty slowly but back up to speed now as we're heading heading home today and Lord willing to some in-studio dividing lines.

Maybe Maybe tomorrow. I don't know. I've got so much to catch up on now that it's it's tough to say, but we'll see. We'll see if we can't squeeze one in And not be completely exhausted by them, but we'll do our best.

So thanks for listening to the Dividing line driving line. Whatever you want to call it. I Thank you for putting up with the background noise and all the rest that kind of stuff. It's just what's necessary to do when you're you're driving down the road by yourself.

With your cell phone, that's all you got. So thanks for listening. Hope it's useful to you. We'll see you next time.