The Chalcedonian Creed and Evangelicalism: Do Evangelicals Still Confess Chalcedon?

Evangelicalism is a diverse and theologically pluralistic movement that does not have a single confessional standard. Evangelicals do not formally subscribe to the Chalcedonian definition in the way that Lutherans subscribe to the Augsburg Confession or Reformed Christians to the Westminster Standards. Yet when evangelical theologians ask who Jesus Christ is, they almost invariably arrive at a Chalcedonian answer — two natures in one person, fully God and fully human.

The Lausanne Covenant (1974), the most significant evangelical doctrinal statement of the twentieth century, affirms that Jesus Christ is 'both God and man' and that his person and work constitute 'the only basis of salvation.' This language is Chalcedonian in substance even if not in form. The same is true of virtually every major evangelical statement of faith: they confess the full divinity and full humanity of Christ in terms that align with what the Council of Chalcedon defined in 451.

Evangelical theologians like J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Oden, and Millard Erickson have all explicitly affirmed Chalcedonian Christology and commended patristic theology as a resource for evangelical faith. The late Thomas Oden went further, arguing that evangelical faith is best understood as a retrieval of the consensus of the early church — of which Chalcedon is a central part. His 'paleo-orthodoxy' movement helped many evangelicals reconnect with the ancient creeds.

There are, however, movements within broad evangelicalism that have drifted from Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Kenotic theologians, who argue that Christ 'emptied himself' of certain divine attributes in the incarnation, can slide toward a view that compromises his full divinity. Some Word of Faith teachers effectively make Jesus into a man who became divine through perfect obedience, a form of adoptionism. Open theism, at its more speculative edges, has raised questions about the immutability that Chalcedonian orthodoxy presupposes.

The stakes of Chalcedonian Christology for the gospel are high. If Christ is not fully divine, his death cannot be an infinite atonement for sin. If Christ is not fully human, he cannot represent humanity before God or be tempted in every way as we are (Hebrews 4:15). The specific errors that Chalcedon ruled out — Nestorianism (two persons), Eutychianism (two natures merged into one) — are not merely technical refinements but distortions that undermine the saving significance of the incarnation.

Evangelicals who are unacquainted with Chalcedon would benefit enormously from reading the Definition. It is brief, precise, and deeply scriptural in its intent. The council did not pretend to explain the mystery of the incarnation but only to guard it — to insist that whatever we say about Jesus must preserve both his full divinity and his full humanity. That instinct is one that evangelicals, at their best, have always shared.