Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

You are wrong.

I have never tried to prove the Chalcedonan Creed wrong. I believe it is correct. But I also believe the Athanasian Creed (the creed Reformed theology recognizes as an applicable) is also correct. I do not see one as contradicting the other.

I think it is obvious that you do not understand Nestorianism. I posted an agreement with the Ecumenical creeds (Christ is one person, two natures, these natures inseparable yet without mixture, completely God, completely human).

One person means one person.... Not two. You are confused.

You also take my affirmation of the Athanasian creed as a denial of the Chalcedonan creed. This shows you understand neither.

Post where I stated Christ is two persons. Post where I rejected the Chalcedonan creed. Your integrity is on the line.

 

No. I quoted the Athanasian Creed. I believe both are true and offer a good definition of the hypostatic union.

All I did was quote an Ecumenical creed. You rejected the creed. You said that a "fully human" Christ is a "different Christ" than is in the Bible. The Athanasian Creed specifically states Christ is "completely God, Completely human".

 

Let's try this another way.

Your claim is that my insistence Christ is "One Person, two natures, completely God, completely human" is Nestorianism because I say "completely God, completely human".

The issue, of course, is that I am not adding this to the orthodox Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed specifically states that Christ is "completely God, completely human".

What you are declaring is Reformed Theology, Lutherans, Calvinism, and orthodox Protestant theology to be Nestorianism.

But you can provide no examples of any here saying Christ was "two persons". You can only reject the Ecumenical creed.

You are the ONLY PERSON on this forum who interprets ANY of the Ecumenical creeds as presenting Christ as two persons.

 

You are confused. It is not a later creed but the expression of orthodox belief AFTER the Chalcedon Creed (it was not actually written by Athanasius but attributed to him in the Middle Age to emphasize the centrality of the doctrine to Christian faith).

It is the base for the Calvinistic view of the Trinity (and for the Belgic Confession).

It does not conflict with the Chalcedon Creed but is more detailed and directly rejects Apollinarianism (what you advocate but was declared heresy in 381).

 

Apollinarianism viewed Christ as having a human body and a "lower soul" but not a human mind.

Regardless, to reject that Christ is "completely God, completely human" is to reject the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

To declare those like R. C. Sproul reject Scripture because of their bipartite view of Man is wrong as well (Scripture is not clear enough here).

 

The problem is not what @1689Dave believes but what he rejects. On this forum he has called not only me but others heretics because we affirm the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. What was stated was Jesus is completely God, completely man. He claimed that this is heresy and for some reason means we (this board, as this board affirms the orthodox position) teach that Christ is two persons.

The bottom line is he is ignorant of the doctrine, the history, and the creeds. He believes that the Chalcedonian creed (451 AD) is the last word on the subject when the Reformed Church, Lutheran Church, Calvinism, and most protestants take the more developed Athansian Creed as the orthodox position of the Trinity. This is what the Reformed Church used to develop the Belgic Confession and what was instrumental in the Synod of Dort.

Basically he is calling Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutherans, most Baptists, all Presbyterians, and all Methodists heretics for going beyond the Chalcedonian Creed.

 

The problem with your claim is it is a false accusation.

No member has claimed what you have presented them as claiming. No member has claimed that Christ is comprised of more than one nature. You are the ONLY person on this board (so far, and that is still here) that has rejected the orthodox position when presented to you by other people.

I said that Christ is One person, two natures (inseparable yet without mixture), completely God, completely man. YOU say that means I support heresy.

 

Perhaps this will help. Here is what each creed says about the Trinity. @1689Dave claims that the Athanasian Creed is less developed. For those who do not know, the Athanasian Creed is a 5th Century Creed that is used by the historic church (by the Catholic Church as well as by Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and most Reformed Baptists) as the criteria for doctrine in regards to the Trinity. It was used to form the Belgic Confession and was instrumental as such at the Synod of Dort (it was held by John Calvin, Beza, and is the "Calvinist" position).

The Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD)

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 rational soul and body; coessential 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 of the Father 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, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; 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, 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 Athanasian Creed (5th Century AD) as applies to the Trinity

[We] worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty. Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord. Yet there are not three lords; there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers; there is one Son, not three sons; there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.

[We] believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time [the λόγος]; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity.

Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however,not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.


Both creeds comprise orthodox doctrine. The latter, however, is more developed.

(Source prca.com, Protestant Reformed Churches)

 

It is a difficult topic and one that is impossible to fully comprehend since we are human.

I think we have to leave it at Christ being One Person, two natures, fully God, fully man. The terms "nature", "person", and "man" are not defined well and have been debated. But if we can at least agree that Christ is One Person, fully man, fully God then we can discuss things as on a common ground.

The problem - and the whole reason I stepped in to ask questions - is that @1689Dave started accusing people of heresy for saying that Christ is fully God and fully man. He backtracked a little on that and started twisting things to try and say we do not really believe Christ is one person. But if you look at his initial threads on the topic he is very condemning of those who would quote the Creed (until he knew it was a creed). But lately he has taken to saying that creed is less developed, even though it is no older than the Chalcedonian Creed.

Mostly I was trying to figure out where he stood.

The board stands with the orthodox position - Christ is One Person, two natures (definition open to debate), completely man, completely God.