• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
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.
But you have not proven anything. You provided Scripture and then stated an opinion which stood in contradiction with the Chalcedon Creed (Jesus as God did not tire is only one example of a rejection of the creed at least in part).

And again, I am not one who would claim you have to accept the creed as a whole. So I don't have a problem if you prefer "separate and distinct".

But I disagree with the implication that God and man were not completely United in Christ. I think this is a denial of the concept of the reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ. At the same time I understand, from previous conversations, that this is something you may view from a legal rather than ontological basis. So there may be other areas influencing our disagreement here.

Do you consider "nature" here to be the same as used in Hebrews 1 (Christ nature - singular - being an exact representation of God's nature)?

A more accurate picture of both Scripture and the Creed would be:

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. However we all know that Isaiah is speaking of God as spirit.
4. But the Logos became flesh, so God could tire physically (in a body)
5. Therefore Jesus as God-man grew weary.
Then
1. The Lord Jesus stilled the storm with a word. (Mark 4:39).
2. A man cannot still the storm with a word, except through faith and that God working through him as we see with Peter raising the dead.
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God-man. Not God and man (which is a heresy) but God-man.

To prove your point you would have to provide a passage stating that Jesus acted as if He were not God. I do not see that one exists.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@Martin Marprelate

To cut to the chase you have to show Scripture speaking of Jesus as if He were not God and as if He were not man (using those qualifiers).

I am not denying that Jesus calmed the sea. I am saying He did this because He is God-man. He commanded the storm and it obeyed. But He did this with a human body, a human mouth, and human lungs. This is God-man.

I am not denying Jesus became weary. But this was also as God-man. We do not experience things in our nature. We experience things personally.

So I believe anytime we look to Christ as if He were not God or Christ following the Incarnation as if he were not man we are approaching heresy if not already there.

Jesus is God-man.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
But you have not proven anything. You provided Scripture and then stated an opinion which stood in contradiction with the Chalcedon Creed (Jesus as God did not tire is only one example of a rejection of the creed at least in part).

And again, I am not one who would claim you have to accept the creed as a whole. So I don't have a problem if you prefer "separate and distinct".

But I disagree with the implication that God and man were not completely United in Christ. I think this is a denial of the concept of the reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ. At the same time I understand, from previous conversations, that this is something you may view from a legal rather than ontological basis. So there may be other areas influencing our disagreement here.

Do you consider "nature" here to be the same as used in Hebrews 1 (Christ nature - singular - being an exact representation of God's nature)?

A more accurate picture of both Scripture and the Creed would be:

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. However we all know that Isaiah is speaking of God as spirit.
4. But the Logos became flesh, so God could tire physically (in a body)
5. Therefore Jesus as God-man grew weary.
Then
1. The Lord Jesus stilled the storm with a word. (Mark 4:39).
2. A man cannot still the storm with a word, except through faith and that God working through him as we see with Peter raising the dead.
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God-man. Not God and man (which is a heresy) but God-man.

To prove your point you would have to provide a passage stating that Jesus acted as if He were not God. I do not see that one exists.
". . . I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.. . ." -- John 20:17.
". . . the man Christ Jesus; . . . ." -- 1 Timothy 2:5.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
". . . I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.. . ." -- John 20:17.
". . . the man Christ Jesus; . . . ." -- 1 Timothy 2:5.
Both are true. BUT what I am arguing against is considering the man Jesus AS IF HE WERE NOT GOD.

Are you claiming the verse you provided is doing this?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
". . . I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.. . ." -- John 20:17.
". . . the man Christ Jesus; . . . ." -- 1 Timothy 2:5.
Neither of these prove that Jesus ever acted as if He were not God.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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 Virgin birth
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
Jesus was both fully God and fully man, so he has both natures within Him now!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe that where God and man intersect the Logos is there.

When the Lord (Jehovah) appears to Abraham in Genesis 18 I believe this is God. But I believe this is the Second Person of the Trinity.

I believe it wrong to say "the Father appeared to Abraham" or "the Godhead appeared to Abraham". But I believe it correct that Jehovah appeared to him. And I am comfortable with the Word or Logos appeard to him.

The same is true of Moses. I believe the Logos was in the bush that was burning without being consumed.

I think this relationship between the Persons of the Trinity existed eternally. When we see God working in the Old Testament I believe this is God working in the Person of the Logos. When God created the Earth I believe this as both through and for the Logos.

I hope this helps understand why I believe man can only know God through Christ. When Jesus says he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life I believe this is literal. Not the "way" to Heaven but the Way to God. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God has explained Him. The Only man who has ever seen the Father is Jesus.

We know that God appeared to Abraham because Genesis 18 states that He did. If you do not believe that this was the Logos (the second Person of the Trinity) then exactly what Person of the Trinity do you believe Abraham beheld?
When we see Jesus, we see the Father in How he acts and talks and does deeds, but NOT seeing the literal Father!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
Jesus rose again in same physical body, glorified, and while in paradise , he still had both natures within Himself!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
By your reply I think that you may have misunderstood my statement.

I am not saying anyone is going into hypothetical philosophy. I am simply stating the fact that statements such as "Jesus is man as if he were not God" is a hypothetical, philosophical statement. The fact is Jesus is both man and God.

It is for that reason I believe it best to discuss these elements of Christ by seeking out Scripture. It is far too easily to get so jumbled up in philosophical ideas about God one misses what He actually reveals of Himself in Scripture.

Does Scripture say that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ?

Does Scripture say that Jesus is man as if he were not God?

Each of us has to go to God's Word, search out Scripture, and see for himself. Our faith is not the responsibility of another, whether another creed, confession, or man.

Blessings,

John
Can Jesus actually be fully human, and not actually have a human nature though?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Did I say otherwise? If so, please point this out so I can address it. Thanks.
I was just referencing your repeated things about the fullness of God in Christ, when we seen jesus, seen the father, Jesus with the wrath also etc!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He had a divine nature (if Hebrews is correct).

How are you defining "nature"?
The immaterial aspect of humanity, the part of us that can communicate and fellowship with God, so jesus had/has a human soul, so human nature!
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
I believe that where God and man intersect the Logos is there.

When the Lord (Jehovah) appears to Abraham in Genesis 18 I believe this is God. But I believe this is the Second Person of the Trinity.

I believe it wrong to say "the Father appeared to Abraham" or "the Godhead appeared to Abraham". But I believe it correct that Jehovah appeared to him. And I am comfortable with the Word or Logos appeard to him.

The same is true of Moses. I believe the Logos was in the bush that was burning without being consumed.

I think this relationship between the Persons of the Trinity existed eternally. When we see God working in the Old Testament I believe this is God working in the Person of the Logos. When God created the Earth I believe this as both through and for the Logos.

I hope this helps understand why I believe man can only know God through Christ. When Jesus says he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life I believe this is literal. Not the "way" to Heaven but the Way to God. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God has explained Him. The Only man who has ever seen the Father is Jesus.

We know that God appeared to Abraham because Genesis 18 states that He did. If you do not believe that this was the Logos (the second Person of the Trinity) then exactly what Person of the Trinity do you believe Abraham beheld?

Interesting...

What is the basis of your belief?

The Archangel
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Interesting...

What is the basis of your belief?

The Archangel
Thank you. I wish I could take credit for the belief but it was at one time considered the only Christian view. I appreciate your request for Scripture.

I base my concept that Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation on John 1 (I believe the Logos of John 1 is Christ).

I base my belief that it is through Christ that all things were created and are sustained on Colossians 1:16.

I establish my belief that God appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre on Genesis 18.

I base the idea that no man has seen God at any time except as declared by the Son on John 1:18.

I know it is a hard teaching, even for believers. It was so difficult as to be a barrier for the Jews of John 8:48-59 when Jesus actually claimed that Identity for Himself. But I do believe that there is a commonality between the Old and New Testament. I believe this is Christ. And I believe we see the exact same God in both testaments.

There are other areas of Scripture we could explore (that God is immutable; Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; the forefathers trusting in the Promise yet revealed, etc.).

Do you have any verses that show that the God who appeared to Abraham was the Father (or the Spirit, or the Godhead)? If so, how do you reconcile it with New Testament passages that state no one has seen God except as declared by the Son?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The immaterial aspect of humanity, the part of us that can communicate and fellowship with God, so jesus had/has a human soul, so human nature!
Ok, so it would be error to associate this "human nature" with weariness or hunger because we are not speaking of the immaterial but we are speaking of the immaterial - the soul.

What part of this immaterial human nature do you believe was different from the immaterial divine nature?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I was just referencing your repeated things about the fullness of God in Christ, when we seen jesus, seen the father, Jesus with the wrath also etc!
If this were actually true then you could point to the reference of mine you were referencing. So point to it (quote my claim that when we see Jesus we literally see the Father). We can discuss it from there.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ok, so it would be error to associate this "human nature" with weariness or hunger because we are not speaking of the immaterial but we are speaking of the immaterial - the soul.

What part of this immaterial human nature do you believe was different from the immaterial divine nature?
One was eternal, one came into existence when conceived by the Holy Spirit!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If this were actually true then you could point to the reference of mine you were referencing. So point to it (quote my claim that when we see Jesus we literally see the Father). We can discuss it from there.
You were claiming that ALL of the fullness of God was in Jesus, and that when we saw Him we saw the Father, correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top