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

The creed is not the word of God. The Son of God and God being the One God, neither being caused in being the One God. The term "begotten" refers to a cause!

 

No, for each person is fully and equally God, I do not see Jesus as being all 3 Persons inside Himself!

 

Mary was as much a sinner as any from the time of Adam's choice, despite what the RCC would teach.

How then was Christ NOT born a sinner?

From Luke 1: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

It was not a lack of sin on Mary's part, but the direct purposed intervention of the work of the Father and Holy Spirit.

 

The Chalcedonian Creed presents an unrealistic (unbiblical) approach to the crucifixion and tomb of Christ.

All humankind have an eternal soul.

The body dies, and the believers are immediately present with the Lord in the new body that John said from the old earthly body he had,

"2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."​

Death brings a transition of form to believers, yet we know so very little other than such will take place.

But what of the death of Christ?

What can we see is found in Scriptures. The PHYSICAL body died, however He stated to the thief - "today you will be with me in Paradise." So, Christ did not cease, the body was sacrificed, and He preached and displayed Himself to the OT saints and spirits of the condemned.

Peter is perhaps the best resource on this matter for he wrote,

“Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”​

The hypostatic union WAS broken upon the death of the physical body of Christ. The body lay in the tomb, Christ was NOT in the tomb, but other places preaching and on display.

The Chalcedonian Creed states:

"...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,​

This is just not the truth. Christ was gloried upon resurrection, the body changed.

The Chalcedonian Creed embarks upon a journey away from the clear teaching of Scriptures.

The BODY of Christ was a PHYSICAL body just as WE have a physical body. It was 100% physical. It was not in any manner special from our own bodies. Our physical body die, but the eternal soul lives on. Christ's body died, but His work was not done. He had more places to visit and preaching to be done while the body was taken off the cross, wrapped, and lay in the tomb. That is the teaching of Scriptures.

Just as God was intricately involved in the birth of Christ, so too was He involved in the resurrection.

Paul writes in Romans,

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you."​

The ESV translates it :

"Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,"​

How often do preachers cling to a creed that presents a failed presentation of Scriptures!

How often have we all said, "Christ died" thinking that it was the very God and not the PHYSICAL vessel of Christ that died. That vessel that (as the atonement lamb) took upon Himself the sins of all the "Kosmos (Cosmos)."

God cannot die, The Christ cannot die, but the body that housed the God-man certainly could.

The Hypostatic union was broken from the point, "Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit."

The creed is wrong, too wrong to be of true value to those of us who cling to Scriptures as our final authority.

 

Well I'm afraid it is you who is going into philosophical hypotheticals. I have given you Scripture for my understanding and you have rejected it for your own philosophy. The Creed states: '....Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin.......to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union [emphasis mine] You are blurring the distinction between the two natures

So do I, but........

This is where you go wrong. We should see Christ as all the fullness of God, but we should also see Him as man. We should see His example of goodness, kindness and total obedience to the Father's will, and seek to follow it as well as we can (e.g. Philippians 2:5, 12; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:21-23). For whilst our Lord certainly says, "I and the Father are One," He also says, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). We cannot pick and choose our Scriptures; we must accept both texts and reconcile them, which is not hard to do, when we turn to Philippians 2. But the Lord Jesus was not only the fullness of God, He was also suffering Servant, and we must see Him in His perfect manhood as well as in the fullness of Deity, otherwise we are in danger of falling into a form of Modalism.

Good. Jesus is certainly the God-man, but 'the distinction of natures [is] by no means taken away by the union.'

I have no particular desire to adhere to Chalcedon apart from its adherence to Scripture. That adherence is shown (contrary to your insistence elsewhere) by its being the basis for all the great Protestant confessions. I have shown you where you fall short in your Christology, and given you Scriptural evidence for it. I understand that you don't accept that evidence so there is little more I can do.

I shall be spending much less time on this board for the foreseeable future. I have additional responsibility in my church and with Gideons UK. I have also not contributed to my blog for nine months and intend to amend that. I have also let my studies into the Lollards and 15th Century Christianity in Britain lapse and need to re-start it. I usually enjoy discussions on this board, but it's a great time-waster. However, I'm sure I shall be about from time to time.

 

I didn't want to break the rule that says something about not posting the same post in more than one thread.

But, if you consider it more to the point of this thread you may do with it as you wish, copy or remove it from one and post in the other.

 

Thank you.

 

My problem is that the creed falls far short of presenting a consistency with the Scripture presentation.

By my continued endorsement of the creed, I am leading the unaware and uninformed into a false system of thought and teaching.

Therefore, I can no longer be supportive of the creed, and although can agree in the narrow focus of presenting The Christ was not two separated individuals residing in a single life form, the creed is just too far from being Scripturally supportable in total.

One should not have to manipulate terms, and bring definitions to the table when ask to feast in agreement over this document.

 

There is no God of the Old Testament vs. the God of the New Testament. It is the same God. On this we agree, as well as on the pre-existence of Christ.

I'm curious as to how you formulate Abraham knowing God (Yahweh) through Christ.

The Archangel

 

I have already provided Scripture:
1. When the Lord Jesus came on board the boat, He was tired and weary so He went to sleep (Mark 4:35ff).
2. God does not get tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28)
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is man as if He were not God.
Then
1. The Lord Jesus stilled the storm with a word. (Mark 4:39).
2. A man cannot still the storm with a word. Try it and let me know how you get on.
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God as if He were not man.

FWIW, As I pointed out before, this is entirely in line with the Chalcedon Creed.

 

Again, this boils down to some people still equating GOD with MAN. What's impossible for man is easy for GOD. jesus was God's son, and also Himself God before He became a man. I don't know by what mechanism He temporarily laid aside His glory & was placed into a human zygote. I only know IT HAPPENED, & that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. That seemstabee a catchall phrase, but in mentioning GOD, it's entirely-TRUE.

While no man can explain HOW, the FACT remains that Jesus was fully man & fully God at the same time. He did almost everything any other man does, except sin, but He also did miraculous things no man can do. He accepted worship, something no angel would do. He didn't argue when someone called Him God, but He told them not to tell anyone else. But he hungered, he thirsted, He grew weary, He slept, etc. But at His "passion", He took enough physical abuse to have killed an ordinary man several times over, but he didn't die til He accomplished everything He'd come to do, & he yielded up His Spirit at the time of HIS choosing.

Yes, He did most things ordinary for a man, but also many things unique to God, while in the same body. So He was both fully man & fully God at the same time.