Two Natures

[Craigbythesea]

What seems to be the case is that men start with the Nicaea instead of scripture.


What the councils declared is first accepted as authoritative, and all of a man's theology and philosophy is shaped from that paradigm.


What that does is disregard everything which contributed to the need for those councils.


I'm 100% convinced that the struggle against the Gnostics impacted all of the philosophy of Christians up til our time.

Unfortunately.

I've been at the symphony, so I apologize for the late response. Ok...ok....it was Styx with the Nashville Symphony.


James is right. You are aware that what we are discussing here is mid-fifth century....right? But that history itself (the real one) affirms Jame's post. It is not that the creeds are necessarily wrong, but that we take them at a starting point. We would not have the Chalcedonian formula, for example, except as a rebuttal to "heresy". Come to think of it, we wouldn't have many doctrines except in a response to something else. That can't be our starting point.

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!

 

[JamesL]

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.

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

The claim by James that “the struggle against the Gnostics impacted all of the philosophy of Christians up till our time” is ludicrous nonsense!

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.

 

[JonC]

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!

With all due respect, brother, your conclusions here are absurd. Think about it.

Here are evidences of your error (the “data” that you have failed to provide to prove your point). From the Baltimore Catechism – “I am persuaded that the use of a good catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times” (Spurgeon)

You have catechism, creeds, systematically developed doctrines (in responses to heresies), and established worldviews.

It is absurd to think that we walk people down through scripture and then through the heresies that were addressed so that they have a complete understanding of the development of our doctrines (given each "heresy" their due diligence, such as the symbolic vs. sacrament observance of Communion or baptism….or the Trinity….or the natures of Christ.

Penal Substitution Theory is taught. We do not go from the various Christus Victor theories through Ransom Theory and then to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers and show that development. We start with what we have determined to be correct doctrine. But without addressing what was deemed wrong in theories, we would have never formulated Satisfaction theory to begin with. The proof is here on this board. So many do not even seem to realize the development of the doctrines they hold (not that the doctrines are necessarily wrong).

The Five Points of Calvinism are used to explain (both positively and negatively, depending on one's leanings) God's work in salvation. But they wouldn't exist apart from Arminianism (not, again, necessarily the truths but the doctrine as it is explained).

No one is saying that these things are necessarily unbiblical. But we do enter scripture carrying a bit of baggage in terms of developed doctrine and theologies. I believe this explains why most growing up in a particular type of church remain in a similar type of church most of their lives (regardless if it is Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.).

Now it is your turn. Show us the proof, the data. Given that we have creeds, confessions, catechisms, systematic theologies, and doctrines that have developed reactionary show us that these are not taught but that we start with a clean slate in the Bible. Or we can simply say that you can’t because you are wrong here.

I think that these things are necessary (we can’t start from scratch, but are often dependent on developed doctrines). That said, it is foolish to ignore these influences.

 

[HankD]

I did NOT write that I have tens of thousands of pages written by the Church Father, but collectively in the publications that I listed.

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

HankD

 

[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

 

[Craigbythesea]

With all due respect, brother, your conclusions here are absurd. Think about it.

Here are evidences of your error (the “data” that you have failed to provide to prove your point). From the Baltimore Catechism – “I am persuaded that the use of a good catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times” (Spurgeon)

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!

You have catechism, creeds, systematically developed doctrines (in responses to heresies), and established worldviews.

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.

It is absurd to think that we walk people down through scripture and then through the heresies that were addressed so that they have a complete understanding of the development of our doctrines (given each "heresy" their due diligence, such as the symbolic vs. sacrament observance of Communion or baptism….or the Trinity….or the natures of Christ.

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!

Penal Substitution Theory is taught. We do not go from the various Christus Victor theories through Ransom Theory and then to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers and show that development. We start with what we have determined to be correct doctrine. But without addressing what was deemed wrong in theories, we would have never formulated Satisfaction theory to begin with. The proof is here on this board. So many do not even seem to realize the development of the doctrines they hold (not that the doctrines are necessarily wrong).

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 used to explain (both positively and negatively, depending on one's leanings) God's work in salvation. But they wouldn't exist apart from Arminianism (not, again, necessarily the truths but the doctrine as it is explained).

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.

No one is saying that these things are necessarily unbiblical. But we do enter scripture carrying a bit of baggage in terms of developed doctrine and theologies. I believe this explains why most growing up in a particular type of church remain in a similar type of church most of their lives (regardless if it is Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.).

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

Now it is your turn. Show us the proof, the data. Given that we have creeds, confessions, catechisms, systematic theologies, and doctrines that have developed reactionary show us that these are not taught but that we start with a clean slate in the Bible. Or we can simply say that you can’t because you are wrong here.

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.

I think that these things are necessary (we can’t start from scratch, but are often dependent on developed doctrines). That said, it is foolish to ignore these influences.

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. If you truly ignore the developed doctrines handed down to us in favor of starting from scratch then I strongly question the wisdom of your decision. You will never, for example, arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity that most Baptists consider orthodox (unless your congregation has somehow mimicked the heresies of old). Penal Substitution Theory is unknown to you. You cannot work with differences regarding the extent of the atonement. The issue of "two natures" is foreign to your experience. In short, you are doing your congregation a disservice by remaining willfully ignorant of the centuries of scholarship and doctrinal development in order to "discover" on your own (or to ignore) these teachings.

What many of us have found is that we start with some teachings, like Penal Substitution Theory. And we go back through scripture and "test" that doctrine. But we do not start out with Scripture unaware of Penal Substitution only to wind up at that theory. In the end, we've started with PST. That does not mean it is error, but it does mean that we need to be cognitive of that starting point when examining other interpretations.

But for most of the Church, pastors have educated themselves on doctrines such as the Trinity, and Penal Substitution Theory. Most Christians who grew up in the church were taught these doctrines by their pastors and teachers. I am not saying that these doctrines are not true (some are, I believe, incomplete), but while I believe systematic theology as a process a valuable tool I am only saying that we should recognize these influences in our doctrine. And yes, we have been influenced by the Church's rebuttal of Gnostic belief. A general belief that the physical body is nothing but a "house" for the soul is a Gnostic belief that some have adopted. So I do not doubt heretical influences (both in the positive and negative) on our worldview. You remind me here of a CoC friend who was offended that I thought "Trinity" a theological term as he "didn't do theology."

 

[Craigbythesea]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. If you truly ignore the developed doctrines handed down to us in favor of starting from scratch then I strongly question the wisdom of your decision. You will never, for example, arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity that most Baptists consider orthodox (unless your congregation has somehow mimicked the heresies of old). Penal Substitution Theory is unknown to you. You cannot work with differences regarding the extent of the atonement. The issue of "two natures" is foreign to your experience. In short, you are doing your congregation a disservice by remaining willfully ignorant of the centuries of scholarship and doctrinal development in order to "discover" on your own (or to ignore) these teachings.

What many of us have found is that we start with some teachings, like Penal Substitution Theory. And we go back through scripture and "test" that doctrine. But we do not start out with Scripture unaware of Penal Substitution only to wind up at that theory. In the end, we've started with PST. That does not mean it is error, but it does mean that we need to be cognitive of that starting point when examining other interpretations.

But for most of the Church, pastors have educated themselves on doctrines such as the Trinity, and Penal Substitution Theory. Most Christians who grew up in the church were taught these doctrines by their pastors and teachers. I am not saying that these doctrines are not true (some are, I believe, incomplete), but while I believe systematic theology as a process a valuable tool I am only saying that we should recognize these influences in our doctrine. And yes, we have been influenced by the Church's rebuttal of Gnostic belief. A general belief that the physical body is nothing but a "house" for the soul is a Gnostic belief that some have adopted. So I do not doubt heretical influences (both in the positive and negative) on our worldview. You remind me here of a CoC friend who was offended that I thought "Trinity" a theological term as he "didn't do theology."

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.

 

[rsr]

I believe the Greek Church says that Jesus has one nature (God-man).

No, the Eastern Orthodox affirm two natures. (Although some Eastern churches — such as the Copts — do reject the Chalcedonian formulation.) The Filioque dispute came later and, as Hank said, was about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonC]

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.

Before I was saved I had never read a catechism, creed, the Church Fathers, systematic theologies or a Bible commentary. After I was saved I went years without exposure to a catechism, creed, the writings of the Church Fathers, a study of systematic theology, or even a Bible commentary. I know that I brought into my understanding explanations from other men, and having been saved in a Baptist church I now realize some of those presupposed views that account for what I clearly see but others miss. Being an American and holding a western worldview also contributed to my understanding as this is something I brought into my view. I automatically looked at righteousness as a "moral" issue (which may or may not be the case in terms of Paul) because of our culture. I automatically accepted the Trinity (even before it was explained to me) because I had some type of knowledge of it before I was saved. Penal Substitution Theory fit my western worldview, it was automatic as well. I am not so foolish as to believe all of my views here are derived from Scripture in isolation because I know that some are derived from Scripture using my own worldview. My point is that I (and others) recognize those things and it is frightening that you, as a pastor, do not. We have to at least be able to recognize our presuppositions to be able to study God's Word fairly.

Unless your point is that you were saved without any explanation of the gospel message, without any preconceived and influenced thought of God and salvation, without any understanding but that God granted you as you stumbled through the Bible given you by that boy in your isolation, AND that through that reading God gave you a concise doctrine of the Trinity, of Penal Substitution Theory, and of the two natures of Christ and how they work together then you do not have a point at all. If, however, that is your point then I believe you are dishonest simply because some of those doctrines (in the form that we articulate and hold them) are not present in scripture itself.

I am cautious (perhaps overly cautious) of pastors who cannot see the influences of contemporary worldviews, developed doctrines, and systematically derived views in their own studies but somehow believe God has granted them such a detailed theological understanding insulated from external influences. One reason I am so cautious is that these doctrines were developed systematically within a milieu of conflicting views. The only way you could come up with Penal Substitution Theory as articulated at the Reformation apart from extra-biblical influences is by divine special revelation that added to the revelation of scripture (which is a process I believe to be the same false teaching that has led to many cults today).

 

[HankD]

No, the Eastern Orthodox affirm two natures. (Although some Eastern churches — such as the Copts — do reject the Chalcedonian formulation.) The Filioque dispute came later and, as Hank said, was about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks rsr.

 

[JamesL]

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

 

[rsr]

Perhaps nature is not the best word, but it is the word that's been used theologically and it serves no good purpose to attempt to use a new word (just as person may not be the best English word to translate persona or prosopon, but that horse is out of the barn. (And this is not new; many disagreements between the Latin and Greek churches turned upon exact understanding of individual words.)

Given that nature has a defined theological meaning, essence is perhaps the best of your alternatives, although it really means what you call attributes.

No, it would not do to divide Christ's natures on spiritual lines. (Not to mention that there is in fact no division, according to Chalcedon; that's the hypostatic union. Christ's human and divine natures cannot he divided.) Accordingly, Christ's human nature includes all of a man's attributes: body, mind, and spirit. Thus, it is impossible that Christ's human nature did not have a spiritual component because without it His nature would not have been fully human.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

 

[JamesL]

Perhaps nature is not the best word, but it is the word that's been used theologically and it serves no good purpose to attempt to use a new word (just as person may not be the best English word to translate persona or prosopon, but that horse is out of the barn. (And this is not new; many disagreements between the Latin and Greek churches turned upon exact understanding of individual words.)

Given that nature has a defined theological meaning, essence is perhaps the best of your alternatives, although it really means what you call attributes.

No, it would not do to divide Christ's natures on spiritual lines. (Not to mention that there is in fact no division, according to Chalcedon; that's the hypostatic union. Christ's human and divine natures cannot he divided.) Accordingly, Christ's human nature includes all of a man's attributes: body, mind, and spirit. Thus, it is impossible that Christ's human nature did not have a spiritual component because without it His nature would not have been fully human.

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"

 

[rsr]

Not quite. The Word has always been God. Jesus is the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures

 

[JamesL]

Not quite. The Word has always been God. Jesus is the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures

??
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"

 

[JamesL]

The Word has always been God.

Have I stated anything to the contrary?

Jesus is the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures

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

 

[rsr]

Please ignore the first response to Iconoclast. It was an incomplete and prematurely posted. I will return to it later.

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.

An example of the modern tendency to ignore the foundations of the faith, I guess. I would argue that many (if not most) Baptists in the pews today are in fact practical modalists, not Trinitarians. Doesn't make it right.

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

Could be. In fact, there is nothing that Jesus did that God did not do. When he ate, he ate as God, though it was in his human nature (God doesn't need to eat). When he raised the dead, he did so as God, in his divine nature.

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.

Truthfully, I would venture that few "orthodox" believers (and it is a bit troublesome that you insist on putting orthodox in quotations) give much thought to the seven ecumenical councils — except insofar as they are reflected in the creeds or confessions of their own churches. (I'm pretty sure that if I were to mention the ecumenical councils at my church I would be met with blank stares — or possibly hostility for referring to something as ecumenical. I'd also wager that if I referred to specifics of the Baptist Faith and Message I would encounter a similar response.)

Even so, I don't know why that would be especially troublesome. If they're listening to sermons, they're hearing the word filtered, yet would we suggest that it's improper to hear sermons that consist of anything more than reading the scriptures? Did not God give his church teachers to help understand the word?

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.

Well, they are inferred from scripture. The fact that you can't find them doesn't mean they don't exist. Read Augustine, read John Gill.

In a sense they are "human contraptions" because they are an attempt of finite human minds to come to grips with an infinite mystery. But I would argue they are not untethered from scripture and represent our best efforts to come to grips with the miracle we see in the Bible.

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

OK. Exactly what does "became flesh" mean? If God became a human, did He have a human nature? Or did He just commandeer a body for a while? Did His humanity at all affect His divinity? When He was finished with the body, what happened to it? Does it still exist?

 

[rsr]

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.

No, they don't. I take it you don't know much about Gnosticism. Or the "Big 7" folks. God throughout the Old Testament "came into contact with a sinful material world" without damage to His glory or dignity.

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

I'm having a hard time with the last part of that. Chalcedon says that he was not "almost flesh," but he was indeed flesh. Are you saying that Chalcedon makes Christ "almost flesh" by enduing Him with both a divine and human nature? This is surprising. If they wanted Him to be viewed only as divine — which I take it is your view — what is the point of positing a human nature? No, given that Jesus was a man, they thought it important to insist that He was both God and man, for theological reasons that contradicted Gnosticism.