The Old Believers, who have remained steadfast in the pre-Nikonian Orthodox tradition, uphold the full and unbroken confession of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Among these, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon in 451 A.D., is a cornerstone in the Orthodox confession of the Person of Jesus Christ. The purpose of this paper is to present the position of the Old Believers regarding the Christology of the non-Chalcedonian sects, namely the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian churches.
The Definition of Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon issued a Christological definition that preserved the Apostolic faith—Jesus Christ is to be “acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” Each phrase was chosen with precision to counter the errors threatening the Church—”without confusion” opposed the blending of divine and human into a hybrid nature; “without change” affirmed the immutability of the divine nature; “without division” and “without separation” upheld the unity of Christ’s Person. This confession safeguarded the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. The Fathers of Chalcedon did not invent new doctrine but clarified what had always been believed in the Church from the beginning, especially in the face of the Eutychian heresy, which blurred the distinction between Christ’s two natures, creating a false composite nature.
The Council acted in continuity with the teachings of the earlier Fathers, particularly St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose orthodox expressions were properly understood and defended. It declared that the Virgin Mary is truly Theotokos, and that the same Jesus Christ is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity and consubstantial with us according to His humanity.
The non-Chalcedonians rejected this council, claiming that it undermined the unity of Christ’s person. They preferred the formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, speaking of “one nature of God the Word incarnate.” However, their interpretation of St. Cyril’s formula was skewed and rigid. The Chalcedonian Fathers, including the great confessors St. Leo of Rome and St. Maximus the Confessor, rightly saw that a strict miaphysite interpretation either denied the reality of the human nature or failed to maintain the clear distinction between the divine and human. St. Leo, in his Tome to Flavian, wrote, “Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word performs what belongs to the Word, the flesh what belongs to the flesh.” St. Maximus insisted that Christ’s human will and energy are essential to the true humanity of the Saviour. The non-Chalcedonian opposition, however, led to a truncated Christology that endangered the very doctrine of salvation.
Old Believer Fidelity to the Councils
The Old Believers’ unwavering adherence to the Ecumenical Councils stems from a profound recognition that these Councils are not merely historical artefacts or expressions of a particular time in Church history, but are, in fact, the authoritative and divinely-guided articulations of the Christian faith. Fidelity to these Councils is, therefore, fidelity to Christ Himself, for they represent the collective discernment of the Holy Spirit through the Body of the Church. The decisions made at these Councils are not optional; they are definitive, doctrinal declarations that safeguard the integrity of the faith and preserve the truth of the Incarnation of Christ.
The rejection of a Council such as Chalcedon is no mere doctrinal disagreement; it represents a fundamental rupture with the orthodox understanding of Christ’s nature. To reject Chalcedon is to deny the very nature of the Saviour Himself—His full divinity and full humanity, united without confusion or change, yet without division. This is not a peripheral issue in the life of the Church, but one that affects the very foundation of Christian theology. The consequences of such a rejection are grave, for it leads to a misunderstanding of the Person of Christ and, ultimately, a misapprehension of salvation itself.
The Fathers of the Church, standing firm on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, articulated that Christ, in His Incarnation, possesses both a divine will and a human will, and, further, both divine and human energies. These teachings are not abstract theological concepts or philosophical curiosities, but necessary affirmations to preserve the reality of the Incarnation. The Church’s understanding of Christ must be consistent with the revelation of Scripture, which affirms the full and complete reality of Christ’s sharing in the human condition. The Epistle to the Hebrews is clear on this matter: Since the children share flesh and blood, Christ Himself shared the same things (cf. Hebrews 2:14).
This sharing in flesh and blood is not a symbolic or partial union, but a true, substantial union of the divine and the human. Christ’s humanity is not diminished by His divinity, nor is His divinity compromised by His humanity. Both are fully operative, in both His will and His energy. The dyothelite position upheld by the Fathers, which affirms the existence of both a divine will and a human will in Christ, protects the authenticity of His actions, teachings, and ultimately His salvific work. Without this distinction, one risks undermining the reality of Christ’s experience as a man—His genuine suffering, His true obedience, and His real death.
Furthermore, the recognition of both divine and human energies in Christ is crucial. Christ’s divine energy is not subject to human limitations, and His human energy is not independent of His divinity. Both energies co-operate in the work of salvation, but they do so in a manner that respects the fullness of His nature. The Fathers of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils did not invent these terms or concepts; they were responding to heresies that threatened to distort the truth of the Incarnation. To maintain fidelity to the Councils is to preserve the Church’s clear and consistent teaching on Christ’s nature, and thus to preserve the truth of the Gospel.
Thus, the Old Believers’ commitment to the Councils is not a reactionary or defensive stance, but a faithful adherence to the truth revealed by God through His Church. In this sense, the rejection of these Councils is not just a historical issue; it is a matter of eternal consequence, for it impacts the way we understand Christ, salvation, and the very nature of God’s revelation to humanity. The Old Believers stand with the Fathers, not only of Chalcedon, but also of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, in affirming that the full reality of Christ’s dual nature is essential to the Christian faith. To stray from this is to stray from the truth of the Gospel itself.
Non-Chalcedonian Deviation and Its Consequences
To deny the two natures of Christ is to undermine His very role as the true mediator between God and man. The orthodox teaching of the Church, as confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, affirms that Christ is both fully divine and fully human. This union of two natures in the Person of Christ is essential for His mediatory work. Only in His full humanity could Christ truly stand in our place and offer Himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin; only in His full divinity could His sacrifice be of infinite value, bridging the chasm between fallen humanity and the all-holy God. To reject this reality is to deny Christ’s capacity to truly reconcile humanity with God.
St. Gregory the Theologian’s statement, “That which He has not assumed, He has not healed,” is a succinct expression of this truth. If Christ did not fully take on human nature, including all of its weaknesses and limitations (apart from sin), then He could not have fully healed it. The assumption of human nature by the Word of God was not a mere formality; it was the means by which salvation was effected. Every aspect of human nature—body, soul, mind—was sanctified through His assumption of it. If His humanity was subsumed by His divinity, reduced to an illusion or swallowed up, then His human experience would indeed become an empty shell, a pious fiction rather than the genuine experience of a real man.
But the Bibble itself asserts the reality of Christ’s human experience. As the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms that although Jesus was a Son, he knew obedience through everything he suffered. (cf. Hebrews 5:8) This is not a metaphorical or symbolic suffering but a real, tangible experience of human struggle. Christ did not simply appear to suffer; He truly suffered in every sense of the word. His learning of obedience through suffering shows that His humanity was real, capable of growth, and capable of enduring hardship. If we do not maintain the full reality of His humanity, we strip the Gospel of its depth and significance. Christ’s human obedience is the key to our own salvation. If His obedience were only apparent, our obedience would be equally hollow.
The non-Chalcedonian rejection of the two natures of Christ remains a significant and unresolved doctrinal error. While they may use Orthodox-sounding language and adopt certain theological terms, their Christology is fundamentally flawed. They do not fully acknowledge the significance of the Chalcedonian definition, which safeguards the true unity of Christ’s two natures. This is not a trivial issue, but one that directly impacts the Church’s confession of Christ. By rejecting the two natures of Christ, the non-Chalcedonians, even if they profess some truths, do not maintain the full and orthodox understanding of the Saviour. They have separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which proclaims Christ as both fully God and fully man.
Contemporary attempts to reunite with non-Chalcedonians, often relying on ambiguous language or selective quotation of the Fathers, are disingenuous at best. The attempts at rapprochement are often based on a compromise of truth, where doctrinal clarity is sacrificed in the name of unity. But such unity is not true unity in Christ; it is a unity built on falsehood. The Old Believers, faithful to the true teachings of the Church, reject such ecumenism, for it represents a betrayal of the truth of the Gospel. Christ is not merely a symbol of reconciliation but the true mediator who, through His real humanity and divinity, has reconciled us to God. Any attempt to dilute or obscure this truth is a distortion of the very foundation of our salvation.
Ecumenical dialogue, when it does not uphold the true and full doctrine of Christ’s person, is ultimately harmful. It leads away from the truth of the Incarnation and denies the full and complete work of salvation. The Old Believers, standing firm in the faith once delivered to the saints, hold that there can be no compromise on this issue. The truth of Christ’s two natures is not negotiable; it is the very heart of the Christian faith. Therefore, any attempt at reunion that bypasses this central doctrine is not a path to unity but a road leading further away from the truth.
The Patristic Witness
The Old Believers remain steadfast in their commitment to the full testimony of the Church Fathers, recognising that the truth of Christian doctrine is found not in isolated phrases or selective quotations, but in the comprehensive and harmonious witness of the Fathers across the centuries. The Fathers of the Church, with their deep theological insight and commitment to preserving the integrity of the faith, offer a unified and coherent understanding of Christ’s nature. It is not enough to cherry-pick a phrase here or there; one must consider the full scope of their teaching.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, often misunderstood by those seeking to distort the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, does not, when properly understood, deny the distinction of natures. In fact, his Christology was clarified in his Formula of Union with John of Antioch in 433 A.D., a document that affirms both the union of the divine and human in the Person of Christ and the distinction between those natures. St. Cyril was adamant in defending the true union of Christ’s divinity and humanity, but at the same time, he did not allow this union to blur or collapse the distinction between the two natures. The Formula of Union emphasised that the Word (Logos) of God assumed the full humanity of Jesus Christ while preserving His divinity unaltered. This was not a mere fusion of the two natures but a profound and real union that respected the integrity of both.
The Council of Chalcedon, in 451 A.D., preserved this balanced understanding by affirming that Christ is “truly God and truly man,” and that His two natures, while united in one Person, remain distinct. The phrase “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” was used to safeguard the full integrity of both His divinity and humanity. This dogmatic affirmation ensures that Christ’s humanity and divinity are maintained in their fullness and that neither nature is compromised or reduced by the other. To reject this balance is to distort the reality of the Incarnation and the nature of Christ Himself.
St. Maximus the Confessor, a towering figure in the defence of orthodoxy, suffered greatly in his unwavering defence of the dyothelite position—the belief that Christ has two wills, one divine and one human. Maximus endured torture and exile for resisting the heretical teachings of the Monothelites, who claimed that Christ had only one will, either divine or human, but not both. Despite immense pressure from emperors and patriarchs, St. Maximus remained resolute in his commitment to the truth of the two wills in Christ. His stance was not a matter of personal preference or theological speculation, but of fidelity to the truth of the Gospel. He recognised that the denial of Christ’s two wills undermined the reality of His humanity and His ability to truly relate to and redeem humanity. The Old Believers, inheriting the same unwavering commitment to orthodoxy, continue to stand firm in the same tradition. No confession of Christ can be considered complete unless it fully affirms the two natures, two wills, and two energies of Christ in one Person. To affirm Christ’s two natures is to uphold the truth of His full humanity and full divinity. To affirm His two wills is to protect the reality of His human experience and His divine purpose. And to affirm His two energies is to acknowledge that both His human and divine actions co-operate in the work of salvation, without confusion or division.
For the Old Believers, this is an essential truth that cannot be compromised. The person of Christ, the God-man, is the foundation of our salvation. If we fail to uphold the full reality of His two natures, two wills, and two energies, we risk distorting the Gospel itself. As St. Maximus the Confessor’s suffering and steadfastness show, defending the true doctrine of Christ is not always comfortable or easy. It may require standing against emperors, patriarchs, and the prevailing powers of the world. But for the Old Believers, this is not a choice—it is a matter of preserving the truth of Christ as revealed by the Church Fathers and safeguarded by the Ecumenical Councils.
Thus, the Old Believers continue to affirm, as did the Fathers of the Church, that no compromise can be made on this issue. Christ’s two natures, two wills, and two energies must be preserved in their fullness, for they are the very means by which God has reconciled humanity to Himself. Any attempt to reduce, collapse, or obscure this reality is a denial of the true Christ and a rejection of the true Christian faith. The Old Believers stand firm in this confession, unyielding to pressures or temptations to compromise the truth of the Gospel.
Conclusion
The Old Believers reject the Christology of the non-Chalcedonian sects. Their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon and its dogmatic definition places them outside the Orthodox confession. We pray for their return to the fulness of the faith, but until they confess the true Christ — as defined at Chalcedon and defended by the Fathers — they remain in error. The truth of the Incarnation is not open to negotiation. Fidelity to Chalcedon is fidelity to Christ.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
— Fr. Charles.