Featured Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

I believe the false "modalist" doctrine came about from men believing they completely understood God's nature, while selling Him short, While WE can't be three separate persons, but still be one, HE can! remember, GOD CAN DO ANYTHING! And all we ACTUALLY know about His nature is what He's told us in Scripture. Anything else is just guesswork.

I recently had a discussion in which I asked someone, "Name something God can't do, besides sin, which He cannot do since sin is disobeying Him, & He can't disobey Himself, & He is the Highest, answering to no one. The other person said, "lie". I said, "Oops! WE can lie, and if WE can, HE can! Again, the ONLY thing someone else can do & God can't is SIN., & I toldja why."

 

There are two basic items of which an old time preacher had to be well acquainted.

The Scriptures.

And

Fried chicken.

No matter the taste, everyone’s fried chicken tasted good.

(Learn early, don’t compare fried chicken, just eat, grin and complement.)

 

My understanding is that Jesus is Man, man as if He were not God. He is also God, God as if He were not man. I didn't coin that, but I heard it so long ago that I can't remember who did.
The most simple and elegant Scriptural proof of that is the 'stilling of the storm.' The Lord Jesus comes on board the boat, and He goes to sleep. He's tired and weary; He's a man. Man as if He were not God. But then the storm arises and the disciple go to Him in a panic. He gets up, rebukes the wind and the waves, and 'there was a great calm.' He didn't pray to God to calm the storm; He Himself ordered it to be still. Who else can do that but God. Jesus Christ is God; God as if He were not man.

 

Again, the statement is not correct. The crux of the Chalcedonian formula is:

He is one and the same Christ, Lord, only begotten, existing in two natures without mixture, without change, without division, without separation; the diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union in the one person, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved, and concurring to one person, and one subsistence.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 404.")
​

Hodge, then states the following: "This was one of the six general Councils in whose doctrinal decisions all Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, professed their agreement." (ibid) While there was the inevitable disagreement between the eastern and western churches, the wide-spread agreement in the western church as well as the Protestant church is, indeed, well attested.

The Chalcedonian formula of one-person; two natures is the orthodox position--especially in protestant churches.

The Archangel

 

Jesus was 100% man as The First Adam (prior to the fall) was totally created by God and in fellowship with God.

Jesus was 100% God (prior to Adam’s fall) and remained God. He only set aside His Glory only to take it up again at the resurrection.

What WAS part of First and Second Adam was the Breath of life spirit. There is One life giving Spirit in the Lord Jesus Christ, not two with one having to sustained by the other.

God breathed into the first Adam imparting the undying spirit, the Second Adam was the breath of life.

Why is this so confusing to some?

 

Since you are denying something so widely accepted, again, the onus is on you to say why the Chalcedonian formula is wrong.

The Archangel

 

I again think you are placing “nature’s” as if the Spirit was breathed into Christ.

That is just not true. That IS NOT the statement of the calcedonian thinking as shown below:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
​

The two natures is Not two spirits, but soul (eternal life giver- Christ) and body (flesh and blood Adam).

This is why the Creed goes on to state the union and describe it in such terms.

One Spirit, One body, just as the First Adam!

However, there was no need or scripture suggesting God breathed into the Second Adam as He did the First, for Christ Is the lifegiving spirit.

It is Just as told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; thereforey the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

Christ was born in flesh and blood, not of fallen spirit.

Is this not what is shown by the words, “the Holy Spirit ... power of the Most High... child born will be called holy...”

 

I do not believe that when Jesus died, the Father and Spirit died also!

 

Not in the sense it would seem that you do!

 

Not at all. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that is what I'm arguing. I'm simply stating that the Council at Chalcedon stated that Jesus was One Person; Two Natures and that has been the Orthodox position since that time.

Well... This is the crux of the creed (ie. where it states Two Natures; One Person):

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ (emphasis mine)
​

The Archangel

 

But not all of the Three physically died!, and Jesus is indeed fully human and fully God, he has 2 natures!

 

'The [Chalcedonian] Creed accepted the Alaexandrian view that Christ was one single Person, and ir implied(if it did nor explicitly state) that this Person was "the only-begotten, God the Logos." It also affirmed the Alexandrian belief that the divine Son went through all the human experiences of Jesus Christ, so that it was proper to say that God the Son was born of Mary.........But the Creed also accepted the Antiochene view that Christ's human and divine natures each kept their own distinctive qualities and properties, Christ's humanity was as real and complete as ours; it was not swallowed up or absorbed by His deity. Christ had two complete and distinct natures, fully and truly human, fully and truly divine. Finally, the Creed made it clear that physis and hypostasis were no longer to be understood in the same sense in the doctrine of the incarnation; physis meant "nature," and hypostasis meant "person," not "nature." In this way, the unclear language which had confused the whole debate between Alexandria and Antioch was decisively settled. Christ was one hypostasis in two physeis-- one person in two natures.
[Prof. N. Needham: 2,000 Years of Christ's Power]

I wonder if @JonC regards this as a reasonably accurate summary of the Creed of Chalcedon, and, if so, what his objections are to it.

 

Well you asked for Scripture; I have given you Scripture. What have you to say about the Scripture for which you asked and I have given?

 

It should be evidenced that this thread is not a discussion of “the two wills” that the RCC incorrectly in council determined in the early 600’s was correct thinking.

Taking such thinking comes from passages that states “Not my will but Yours be done.” But it is an abuse to the Scriptures. It was not human will versus Devine will, but rather the discussion of the Devine will of the Son to the Devine will of the Father, For is not God triune in three distinct persons?

I do not accept that the human will had any part in the Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ was not split and divided in which He was having to constantly conform and subject the human will.

Paul states that believers are to “have the mind of Christ”.

He instructs the Corinthians:

12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
​

Crist did not receive the spirit of the world. As He grew, His body mind developed the awareness just as any human does. The Spirit of Christ imparted to that human mind as Paul tells the Corinthians they were imparted teaching.

Therefore, Christ grew in mind and body “in favor with God and man.”

I reject the RCC thinking, but neither do I accept the Monothelitism thinking that Christ’s will was not independent of the Father’s.

They are both wrong, and Making human thinking and perspective as that which is Devine. Both are terribly wrong!

 

That view would be defined as holding to a heretical view in regards to the person of Jesus, correct?

 

Can you again give the Scripture reference. I don’t want to hash back through posts finding it.

Thank you.