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

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.

 

@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.

 

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?

 

Did I say otherwise? If so, please point this out so I can address it. Thanks.

 

He had a divine nature (if Hebrews is correct).

How are you defining "nature"?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.