Featured Two Natures

The claim by James that men start with the [Nicene Creed] may be true of him, but it is NOT true of responsible Christians. The claim by James that “What the councils declared is first accepted as authoritative, and all of a man's theology and philosophy is shaped from that paradigm” may be true of him, but it is NOT true of responsible Christians. The claim by James that “the struggle against the Gnostics impacted all of the philosophy of Christians up till our time” is ludicrous nonsense!

 

Do you think there's such a thing as a responsible Christian who ain't been converted to Christianity yet?

It's an observation of near silence and some key doctrines formulated because of that near silence.

So you wouldn't recognize it anyway, because you've been victimized by that near silence by bowing the knee to those who were victimized before you.

 

I have 20,000 plus pages of early church fathers on a DVD which I have downloaded.

HankD

 

The very term "Trinity" is not found in the scriptures, so there is at least some truth in what James has said.

The early church fathers wrote extensively concerning the hypostatic union, the Trinitarian dogma and many other subjects sometimes with quite a bit of passion and in one case even bloodshed at a church council concerning the meaning of 1 John 5:7 .

Yes 1 John 5:7 was an object of debate even in the 4th century, from the old itala mss however, but that's another discussion.

So we have to start with borrowed terminology like the "Trinity" and then move on to the scriptures.

As I previously posted what James has said it is completely true in my case being a former Catholic having been indoctrinated into the dogma of the church of Rome at about 8 years old for First Holy Communion then another more intense encounter for the sacrament of Confirmation at 12 years old. Very little scripture, it was virtually done entirely from Church dogma/decrees and Canon Law (as I look back).

HankD

 

Please observe in your rebuttals the difference between the English indefinite and the English definite articles. The Lord God has given us many safeguards against theological errors, but by far and away the primary safeguard is the Holy Bible. Nothing, absolutely nothing comes even close to the use of the Bible!

How many people have in their homes copies of those catechism and creeds, and how many of them own Bibles? I have a few of catechism and creeds in my home, but I have never based any of my beliefs upon any of them, and even the catechism and creeds that I do have in my home are based upon the Bible.

Whom do you mean by “we” and walking them down through this and that? I am a pastor and teacher of the Bible, and I most certainly have never based any of my sermons or lessons on a catechism or creed!

The study of the history of the development of Christian doctrine is important because it shows us which doctrines are really biblical doctrines, and which doctrines were concocted by men.

The Five Points of Calvinism are the consequence of Calvin’s doctrines being refuted by the Remonstrants on the basis of what the Bible explicitly teaches, and the reaction of Calvinists to that rebuttal.

I agree, but this does NOT support the silly claims that JamesL posted.

The Ante-Nicene Church Father did NOT base their teaching upon any catechisms or creeds; they based their teaching upon the Bible, and we have thousands of pages of their writings that prove this fact. The foundation of Christian doctrine has always been primarily the Bible.

There is a monumental difference between the catechisms and creeds influencing, to some extent, Christian beliefs, and Christian beliefs being founded upon the catechisms and creeds.

The claim by James that men start with the [Nicene Creed] may be true of him, but it is NOT true of responsible Christians. The claim by James that “What the councils declared is first accepted as authoritative, and all of a man's theology and philosophy is shaped from that paradigm” may be true of him, but it is NOT true of responsible Christians. The claim by James that “the struggle against the Gnostics impacted all of the philosophy of Christians up till our time” is ludicrous nonsense!

 

Before I was saved, I had no interest in anything as foolish as Christianity or the book of ridiculous nonsense that they absurdly called the “Holy Bible,” and I knew nothing at all about catechisms, creeds, the Church Fathers, systematic theologies, or Bible commentaries. But wham! I was out for my evening stroll one night and an unseen force took a hold of me so strongly that I could not take another step forward, but found the force turning me around to do something that to me was absolutely preposterous—not to mention so exceeding dangerous that it put my life in great peril of loss! But—just five minutes later—I knew that that force was the Holy Spirit, that Jesus had died on a cross for my sins, and that I had a saving faith in Christ and His death on the cross for my sins!

That very night, I began reading a Bible that a Christian boy had given to me and which I had kept only because I liked the boy. Over the next few weeks, I read through that Bible from cover to cover while sitting at my desk in my study, and read though the New Testament, that I carried with me, another twelve times. I still knew nothing at all about catechisms, creeds, the Church Fathers, systematic theologies, or Bible commentaries, but God called me to become a pastor. Therefore, I got a good Christian education and was called to pastor a church!

That education included learning about catechisms, creeds, the Church Fathers, systematic theologies, Bible commentaries, and a whole lot more—and the theology that I had learned directly from the Bible was either confirmed or rebutted. What I learned about Hebrew and Greek did not come directly from the Bible, and much of what I learned about the cultures of the biblical lands and peoples did not come directly from the Bible, but the biblical theology that I learned did. The early Ante-Nicene Church Fathers learned biblical theology directly from the Bible, and so have God-fearing men throughout the history of the Church. The Bible is not so difficult to understand that a man who loves God cannot understand it—especially if he prays daily and sincerely to God for Him to teach His truths to him, and for God to protect him from error.

 

Thanks rsr.

 

I think the use of the word "nature" is a little convoluted in regard to Christ and whether He has one or two.

There are numerous ways to think of nature.

We may think of characteristics, such as the nature of water as it relates to temperature (steam, liquid, ice)

Or we may think of attributes, such as the nature of water is to run downhill (or self level)

Or we may think of essence, such as the nature of water is hydrogen and oxygen.

But this last one can even be thought of in two different ways.

Is the essence of Christ divided along the line between human and divine?

Or is it divided along the line between spirit and body?

I believe it to be the latter, for numerous scriptural reasons. But others think the line between human and divine is better, and begin to incorporate other understandings of nature into their view.

It's a deep subject, and this is really the thrust of what I was getting at with my references to the 7 ecumenical councils - and Gnostics

 

Jesus has always been God....He veiled himself in human flesh.

 

I would argue that in the minds of most every believer I've heard or read (at least in the last couple of decades) there is, in fact, a dividing line.

That's where we see retarded statements like "In His humanity..." or "In His divinity..."

But also, you make one of my earlier points, that virtually every "orthodox" believer embraces the Big 7 as authoritative truth first, and then approaches scripture from that paradigm.

By the way, I don't embrace the notion that Jesus is "fully human" or "fully divine"

Those are the contraptions of men, nowhere found in scripture.

God is Spirit. The Word is God. The Word became flesh - not "fully human"

 

??
I quoted 3 pieces of scripture:

God is Spirit - John 4:24
What part of that is "not quite" ??

The Word is God - John 1:1
What part of that is "not quite" ??

The Word became flesh - John 1:14
What part of that is "not quite" ??

Scripture nowhere says anything about Jesus becoming "fully human"

The closest is Hebrews 2:14-17
But that squarely qualifies the "all things" as flesh and blood. In other words, what Hebrews 10:5 quotes "A body you have prepared for Me"

 

Have I stated anything to the contrary?

I agree there's no static.

But this is the part which came out of the fight against Gnosticism.

The Gnostics thought in terms of spirit and material realms. The first being inherently good and the latter being inherently evil.

They also mistakenly thought that a sinless God could not come into contact with a sinful material world without becoming corrupt. And you know what? Most adherents of Big 7 faith think the same thing.

I'm sure you've probably participated in the theological gymnastics required in order to try to have Jesus as a human without some sort of fictitious sin nature that He purportedly didn't inherit from his fleshly mother, who being a descendant of Adam and inheriting it from him, wasn't able to pass it on to the Holy One who was apparentl made "almost" flesh