The Chalcedonian Creed: Fact, Fiction, or Something Between?

Jesus was never able to physical die if he was just God, so had to be also a man, and he had to have the human nature, as one cannot be human with being found human natured!

 

Jesus physically died, and he was God!

 

Yes, let's do it! Where are your Scriptures?

 

You are confusing the Chalcedon Creed with Nestorianism. Chalcedon makes it clear that Christ is only one Person. Yet He was God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God. Christ suffered; Christ calmed the seas. But when we see Him become tired and needing to sleep, which is not something that God needs to do (Isaiah 40:28), we know that it is because He is a man, man as if He were not God. And when we see Him calm the wind and waves with a word, we know that this is something only God can do. Christ is God, God as if He were not man. But Christ does not do one thing 'in His human nature' and another thing 'in His divine nature.' That is Nestorianism which the creed was composed, in part, to oppose. He is not two people in one body-- the man Jesus and the divine Son as Nestorius taught. Christ is one hypostasis in two physeis. A single Person with two natures.

 

Yes, I can agree with all that, save perhaps the penultimate line. Jesus is not less than God, but God is more than Jesus; He is also Father and Holy Spirit. But what is your objection to Chalcedon and what Scriptures do you use to substantiate your disagreement?

 

And from what Scripture do you support such thinking?

 

Again your lack of Scripture to support this is alarming.

 

Wow, perhaps you need to tell the coroner or mortician this.

Desecration of the dead is a crime.

One can not argue that the human ceases to be just because what you term as “nature” is missing.

That actually seems Darwinian influenced, in which a human is not human unless certain criteria is met.

 

Martin,

“Physeis” was first used by the Greeks to mean the “physical” not the study of relationships of the body to stimulation and input.

For you to extend “physeis” to incorporate such as temperament, intellect, ... is beyond the original use.

For the reader, we derive physical and physics from “physeis”. Both having to do with the structure and force of material and matter.

Therefore, it is debatable as to why the Chalcedonian Creed would use “natura” when the best word would have been “physeis” as it relates to the full human (being found as a man) and was historically how the ancients considered the body of Christ.

Therefore, the creed may certainly be taken as accurate, but not if one supposes fleshly personality attributes (temperament, intellect, ...) were part of the mix.

Christ was 100% physically human and 100% fully God, inseparable, in complete harmony, with a single will, singleness of thought, singleness of desire, and singleness in return (no spiritual return while leaving the body with the father - same in the grave. He was at all times eternally linked to the Father and took upon Himself flesh.

At no place does the Scripture state he took upon Himself human personality traits of which modern science portrays as “nature.”

 

I'm sorry if you find my expression confusing; as I have written elsewhere, it is not original to me but it seems to sum up Chalcedon rather well.
'.....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.....' The two natures are not blended or confused. Christ is real God and real man. Man as if He were not God; God as if He were not man. It seems rather clear to me.

 

As I've said, Jesus is fully God; I have no problem with Colossians 1:19 or 2:9. His Deity was not hamstrung by His humanity when He stilled the storm or raised Lazarus from the dead. But although Jesus is God, God is not Jesus. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No. All the fullness of God dwells in Father, Son and Spirit.

So what is your understanding?

 

Where exactly have I done that? I absolutely do not believe that Christ had two temperaments or two wills. He had a human nature and a divine nature, but He did not have two wills. He could be hungry and thirsty, tired and weary; He could be tempted, which are things that apply to man and not God. He knew the thoughts and desires of all men (John 2:24-25) and had power of the elements and over death, and was without sin, which are things that apply to God and not man. As man, He prayed to the Father; the Father did not pray to Him. After His baptism, 'the Spirit immediately drove Him out into the wilderness' (Mark 1:12). He did not drive or send the Spirit anywhere until after His ascension.

I do not do so.

Yes.

No. The Father sent the Son. That implies separation. The Son could be hungry (Matthew 4:2). The Father does not feel hunger.

Yes.

Christ could be tempted (Hebrews 4:15). At Gethsemane, He shrank from what He was about to face. "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.....'

Yes, for the glory of God. '......nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will' (Matthew 26:39). See also John 12:27.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You'll have to explain further.

No. That sounds like Sabellianism.

See above.

 

Creeds are man-made; Scripture is God-given. Let's go forward with that in mind.