Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

[Yeshua1]

Our discussion centers on the Symbol of Chalcedon and you [JonC] trying to prove it wrong and Nestorianism, which it condemns, correct.

You affirm that God is One Being in 3 Persons, and not as the heretical oneness teach, correct?
And that Jesus is fully God and man, One person with 2 distinct natures?

 

[robycop3]

Jesus is no longer man; He's now fully God again.

 

[atpollard]

Jesus is no longer man; He's now fully God again.

I think Hebrews disagrees.

 

[JonC]

Jesus is no longer man; He's now fully God again.

I disagree. He was never "not fully God" and He is also "man" (He is the Firstborn and we are the "brothers"). I think it was D. A. Carson who put it this way - now there is man in the glory.

 

[robycop3]

He's no longer man. When He returns, He will be in His full power & glory. He temporarily laid some of that aside so He could become also a man, but that role is over.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus is no longer man; He's now fully God again.

He was always fully God and man since his Incarnation!

 

[Yeshua1]

He's no longer man. When He returns, He will be in His full power & glory. He temporarily laid some of that aside so He could become also a man, but that role is over.

Jesus is forever the God man!

 

[Yeshua1]

He's no longer man. When He returns, He will be in His full power & glory. He temporarily laid some of that aside so He could become also a man, but that role is over.

he still has those nail scars and wounds in his body!

 

[percho]

An interesting topic, but a little too "inside baseball" for me to follow.

At issue (it seems to me) is whether Jesus had a human "spirit/soul" and a divine "Spirit/Soul" the second Person of the Trinity.
If a person says both, then they are charged with claiming Christ is two persons, but you can say both and claim Christ had two natures. Of course the difference between person and nature is left a little fuzzy.

A second issue is whether, if Christ did not have a human "spirit/soul" in addition to His divinity, he was not fully man (human), and therefore could not be effective as a sacrifice providing the means of salvation. Again, what it means to be "fully" man is left a little fuzzy.

What is the scriptural basis for the belief Christ had a human "spirit/soul" in addition to His divine Spirit.

Question

Did this, "Spirit/Soul" become this, "spirit/soul" ?

How? Was it not through this?
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[fn] of a woman, born under law, Gal 4:4 NKJV -- BTW I removed the from before law because it is not there and I believe Christ was born under this: Law.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Was the woman necessary for Christ?
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:18 NKJV

Why was the woman taken from the man?

How did Eve help Adam? How was she his help meet? ----
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

If you have a false understanding of Christ. You are either extremely limited in bible study or lost.

 

[1689Dave]

You affirm that God is One Being in 3 Persons, and not as the heretical oneness teach, correct?
And that Jesus is fully God and man, One person with 2 distinct natures?

One person, God. with two natures. One divine, the other human.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

Nestorianism (the popular view here) is heresy.

 

[1689Dave]

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)

Athanasius of Alexandria, also called Athanasius the Great, Athanasius the Confessor or, primarily in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Athanasius the Apostolic, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. Wikipedia
Born: Alexandria, Egypt ?
Died: May 2, 373 AD, Alexandria, Egypt

451 produced the Chalcedon creed. It is later than Athanasius.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

Why did you react to the Symbol of Chalcedon the way you did and continue to do? It is proven true and it proves you false.

 

[1689Dave]

An interesting topic, but a little too "inside baseball" for me to follow.

At issue (it seems to me) is whether Jesus had a human "spirit/soul" and a divine "Spirit/Soul" the second Person of the Trinity.
If a person says both, then they are charged with claiming Christ is two persons, but you can say both and claim Christ had two natures. Of course the difference between person and nature is left a little fuzzy.

A second issue is whether, if Christ did not have a human "spirit/soul" in addition to His divinity, he was not fully man (human), and therefore could not be effective as a sacrifice providing the means of salvation. Again, what it means to be "fully" man is left a little fuzzy.

What is the scriptural basis for the belief Christ had a human "spirit/soul" in addition to His divine Spirit.

"fully human" not defined correctly = Jesus is multiple personality = crazy.

 

[JonC]

Why did you react to the Symbol of Chalcedon the way you did and continue to do? It is proven true and it proves you false.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing I said about the Chalcedon Creed is that I believe it is correct.

I also said I am not creedal (while I believe both creeds accurate I do not hold them in an authority for my faith).

I am Baptist. We do not hold Ecumenical creeds the same way you do.

Again, quote me departing from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity or be called a liar.

You keep saying things you cannot back up.

You keep making charges but cannot provide a quote.

Provide a quote when making wild accusations.

 

[JonC]

Athanasius of Alexandria, also called Athanasius the Great, Athanasius the Confessor or, primarily in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Athanasius the Apostolic, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. Wikipedia
Born: Alexandria, Egypt ?
Died: May 2, 373 AD, Alexandria, Egypt

451 produced the Chalcedon creed. It is later than Athanasius.

You have absolutely no clue.

You need to study before making such ignorant claims.

The creed was not a written by Athanasius.

 

[JonC]

Nestorianism (the popular view here) is heresy.

You need to study before making ignorant accusations.

No member has stated Nestorianism.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The issue is you are taking a Catholic stance on the Baptist section of the board. Baptists will not accept your position when it comes to the creeds. But Baptists (unlike you) do hold in common with other theologies the orthodox Christian view of the Trinity.

 

[Mikey]

Nestorianism (the popular view here) is heresy.

I am still confused. Can you state exactly what you believe and what the issue is with what others believe. is it the natures, the persons, the wills etc.?

 

[atpollard]

For those (like me) not up on your ancient heresies, here is a definition from THEOPEDIA:

Nestorianism is basically the doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c.386-451), Patriarch of Constantinople, although he himself denied holding this belief. This view of Christ was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.

The motivation for this view was an aversion to the idea that "God" suffered and died on the cross, be it the divinity itself, the Trinity, or one of the persons of the Trinity. Thus, they would say, Jesus the perfect man suffered and died, not the divine second person of the Trinity, for such is an impossible thought -- hence the inference that two "persons" essentially inhabited the one body of Jesus. Nestorius himself argued against calling Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos) as the church was beginning to do. He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council at Ephesus (431) accused Nestorius of the heresy of teaching "two persons" in Christ and insisted that Theotokos was an appropriate title for Mary.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.


Apollinarianism is a heresy maintaining that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but not totally divine either. Apollinarians suggested that he had a human body and a human soul, but his mind was taken over by the eternal Logos. The heretical belief is named for Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 350).