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

Jesus and his father are one as in both being God, but Jesus is not the Father though, correct?
And even while on earth, there was also God in heaven, correct?

 

Jesus as both fully God and fully man must have the natures that each would have, correct?
And why the need for the Virgin Birth if he was not with a human nature, so he would not be born a sinner and not touched by Original Sin as all the rest of us were?

 

Did Jesus have to come as he did though?
All humans save him were born with sin natures, how did He miss having One?

 

If you read Genesis 3:22, what became the sin nature in man was of God's divine nature, being the knowledge of good and evil.


What Jesus received from Adam through His mother was what He brought with Himself as God in the flesh.

So it is written, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

 

Do you deny original Sin, and that due to the fall all humans save Jesus were born as sinners?

 

ALL humans, due to the fall, were born as sinners, except for Jesus...

 

Are we born as sinners in our natures, or born clean, and just become sinners when we choose to sin?
Were we affected by the Fall of Adam in our humanity at all?

 

All creeds are man-made, and if any creed does not comply totally with SCRIPTURE, it's false.

 

In the O.P. @JonC wrote:

It might be thought that this meant that JonC accepts Chalcedon. However, in the ‘Do our Systems of Thought teach that Jesus is the one true God?’ thread, we read in Post #113:

And in post #117:

In post #119, @The Archangel commented:

To which JonC replied (Post #123):

Then in response to @The Biblicist (post #122), he wrote:

And a little later in post #148:

And then in post #159:

The 'history lesson' is wrong in several respects, chiefly because Chalcedon is the basis for most Protestant Confessions, including the Baptist 1689.

Now here is the Creed as written out by @JonC in the O.P. Emphases mine:

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 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; begotten before all ages 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 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 Chalcedon Creed established that Christ is one Person in two natures: one hypostasis in two physeis, ' the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union.' This is what @The Archangel, @The Biblicist and myself have been arguing. So let us be quite clear: it is @JonC who is in disagreement with Chalcedon, and indeed with orthodox Christianity down the ages. Lest there be any doubt of this, here is the 1689 Confession 8:2-3, emphases mine:

2._____ The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

3._____ The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
( Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

 

Here @JonC claims that God can 'tire physically,' contra Isaiah 40:28, and confuses the separation of the two natures of Christ-- His human nature impacting upon His divine nature, so that He becomes 'less God than God.'

 

The point I was making, that you are missing or ignoring completely, is that you cited John 1:18 as a proof that the Logos was the one who appeared to people, like Abraham and Moses, in the Old Testament. I stated your point--that the Logos met with Moses and Abraham--was outside the scope of John's argument in his prologue. You stated you only considered John's prologue to affirm the eternality of Christ. I pointed out you didn't use the passage that way in your initial argument. Then, you launched into a paragraph insinuating that I was denying the eternality of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the accusation I spoke of.

I did not misspeak. And, of course, the error in understanding couldn't be with you...

I do not recall you arguing this. I, however, did.

Now, I'm not disagreeing that it is likely the pre-incarnate Christ that appears to Abraham in Genesis. However, that appearance is not the one I've been asking you about. You've been engaging in the classic Red Herring and you still haven't answered my question: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?

The Archangel

 

I am using the translation of the Creed that you copied out in the O.P. If you believe that it is incorrect, why did you use it? Just read it again; it is perfectly clear. One Person in two natures.

Now where have I ever removed 'inseparable'? If I had, it would indeed have been a form of Nestorianism, but of course I never have and so your allegation is false. What I do say is that you cannot take the word 'inseparable' and bounce up and down on it like a trampoline without taking into account the other words in the Creed. The Person of Christ cannot be separated into two as Nestorius sought to do, but He has a human and a divine nature. As man, He could be in only one place at a time (John 11:6, 15) but as God He was in heaven at the same time He was on earth (John 3:13), but it is the same Son of Man. If you say that as God He could only be in one place at a time, you have made Christ less God than God.

Not my use, but the usage of Chalcedon and all the Protestant confessions that I am aware of. Are you possibly confusing the ousia of Nicea with the physeis of Chalcedon?