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

I don't think that the translation of the Creed is incorrect.

You removed "inseparable" in your explanation (Jesus did something in one nature separated from the other). We have to treat all of the descriptive words of the two natures as a whole (as the Creed itself shows). The Creed was formed to combat heresies - we can't look at the natures at one time as being distinct (without "inseparable") and at another time as inseparable without being "distinct".

The descriptions the Creed offers were not meant as choices we can use to fit into our theories but rather how the authors of the Creed believed Christ's nature to be. Your view is, I believe, reflective of postmodernism because you want to adhere to the older things of our faith but only on your own terms. So you redefine "nature" to mean "person".

My only point is that when Jesus suffered this demonstrated His humanity. But Jesus did not suffer apart from it being in both natures.

The confusion you have now is what caused division shortly after the Creed. You are using "nature" as if it were "person". Jesus did not suffer in any nature. He did not calm the sea in any nature. Our nature is demonstrated by our actions and what we can experience. But we experience things and do things in our person.

This is a form of Nestorianism because while you affirm two "natures" you change the actual meaning to "person" in practice (i.e., Jesus suffered in his human nature because God cannot suffer). It is the same as saying God did not become flesh because God is not man and God is spirit.

That is why I asked if you really believed that the Word became flesh. It isn't because I doubt you do but rather than your theory dictates you don't. You are inconsistent. But given your intelligence I believe it is something you simply have not thought through.

 

This is what I meant by why I was trying to be careful so as not to upset you. I was not trying to belittle you, only noting that you have reported things you believe I implied over 15 times during the past few weeks. That is pretty excessive. I have no doubt you reported post you just quoted (because I see you did).

We have both charged the other with holding a view approaching at least one position that has been deemed heresy. But I have not taken offense or considered it an insult. This is the nature of argument - one side believes the other side incorrect. You, on the other hand, seem to view any fundamental disagreement as somehow an insult to your person. You don't need a debate board, you need an echo chamber.

I know that I am not always the most sensitive to members who are less objective in dialogue. I don't mean to hurt your feelings. I don't mean to make you go to the administration in the form of a report rather than dealing with me. I am retired military and sensitivity to feelings is not my strongest characteristic.

I believe that Peter did not die when he saw Christ's transfigured face because he was gazing upon Christ - God-man.

I also believe that Mary looked upon God as a baby and did not die. I am not sure but maybe this is an example of our differences. I believe that Jesus is God (as man and as God).

 

The amount of times you sought help from the administration over the past few weeks seem to present a different story.

You have repeatedly told me what I believe. I have not told you what you believe. I've asked questions and stated my understanding of your belief, but I've never misrepresented your view. You simply have taken every thing I say as declaration. That is not my problem, it is yours.

I have not misrepresented your view. I stated mine. Deal with it, or don't.

I believe that the all the glory of God dwells in Christ bodily.
I believe that Christ is the Word become flesh.
I believe that no one knows God except through Christ.
I believe that Jesus is God's fullest revelation of Himself to mankind.

In the Old Testament I do believe that there are instances where God was present in all three Persons. I believe this is true at Christ's baptism as well (as I stated).

I believe that Jesus had one nature as defined in Hebrews 1, but two natures when defined as divinity and humanity. I believe these two natures are distinct and inseparable. So I reject the idea Jesus did things in one nature without the other. That speaks of "person" not "nature".

Deal with what I believe and end the childish ad hominem. Remember what Paul said - "when I became a man I put away childish things".

Or don't. It's up to you.

 

You are more than welcome. I only wish that we could examine our views in a more mature manner (both you and I).

We have our differences (strong differences). I appreciate that we were able to discuss these things as men. Sometimes members are tempted to cry to the "teacher" at every turn. Whether good or bad, we at least disagreed "face to face".

We will never disagree on these theological point, but I do see you a brother in Christ. When we speak of Christ's dual nature (man and God) we cannot but run into barriers as we cannot know all there is to know about God.

I hope you and your family have a wonderful New Year.