Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

[atpollard]

On and on folks, on and on, the obvious false doctrine of Calvinism is defended using smokescreed.

I was defending nothing, I just don't particularly like your posts.
You are a 'passive-agressive' anti-Calvinist troll.

(and the word is "smoke screen" as in "something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead" ... your post is a "screed" as in "a ranting piece of writing") - that was my passive-agressive response, just helping you out with your vocabulary.

 

[atpollard]

Never mind my post #97 where I did address the question.

FACT CHECK:

The QUESTION:

What does the symbol of Chalcedon say?

The Answer (post #97):

Errors:
1) What is being taught with the assertion Jesus had a reasonable (rational) body?
2) Why was Christ's divine Spirit not included?
3) Properly understood, Psalm 2:7 teaches God the Son was engendered when He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and Power.
4) What is "consubstantial?" Being of the same essence does not equate with being equally essential. For example Christ is more essential than any other human.
5) Only Begotten is a mistranslation
6) No Baptist accepts the creeds handed down, should read "and the Scripture handed down to us.

DOES POST #97 "ANSWER" THE QUESTION?
DOES POST #97 "ADDRESS" THE QUESTION?

Let the reader decide for themselves.

 

[1689Dave]

FACT CHECK:

The QUESTION:


The Answer (post #97):


DOES POST #97 "ANSWER" THE QUESTION?
DOES POST #97 "ADDRESS" THE QUESTION?

Let the reader decide for themselves.

The Symbol of Chalcedon speaks for me.......loud and clear. Only a heretic would challenge it.

 

[1689Dave]

I know the answer from scripture Sir, I was trying to encourage others to base their doctrine on scripture rather than creedal assertions without actual support in scripture.

The creeds only summarize the bible topics. Do you have any books? Why those and not the creeds?

 

[1689Dave]

No. Christians test doctrine against Scripture.

The creeds give a full overview most are unaware of, and therefore easily led astray. I think we proved that here.

 

[atpollard]

The Symbol of Chalcedon speaks for me.......loud and clear. Only a heretic would challenge it.

I have to admit that I never heard of it before y'all started talking about it here. I was more familiar with the Athanasian Creed (from the Lutheran Satire video on St. Patrick and the Trinity) so I had looked up and studied that. I had also studied the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. There was a board that required members to affirm agreement with the Nicene Creed to post as a Christian. In general, I never had any problem with any of them once I understood the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic". I am ok with the catholic church but have some doctrinal issues with the Catholic Church. I have found the Nicene Creed a useful 'shibboleth' for rooting out 'cults'. People that have serious problems with the basics tend to raise red flags that suggest a closer examination is in order. I have problems calling someone "Christian" that denies the deity of Christ or His virgin birth or his death and resurrection.

The Symbol of Chalcedon didn't cause me any heartburn either. There was nothing in there that I had a problem with. I saw Van's point that one COULD nit pick words to create biblical untruth, but nothing prevents people from doing that with Scripture and we don't advocate restricting Bibles to Professional Clergy. So that seems a poor excuse to be "hating" on creeds.

I think that JonC has made a valid point that Creeds fall below scripture in authority. I don't think for a minute that you would disagree with that. Where the usefulness of creeds and the danger of rejecting them completely lies is in an area of advice given me by a mentor. He told me that if I discovered a meaning in scripture that no one else in 2000 years had ever seen, I was almost certainly wrong and should proceed with extreme caution.. In the same spirit, if you believe something that contradicts the earliest ecumenical creeds, there is a high probability that what you believe is not correct and you should proceed with extreme caution.

The creeds serve as a warning fence that one may be drifting too far off the path for safety. Like a guardrail, they are not meant to replace a GPS or a roadmap, they are just a warning from those that traveled the road before you to keep you from driving off a cliff.

So I am still Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria ... I am just willing to take some advice from Creeds and Confessions and Statements of Faith to see what those that trod this road before me had to say.

 

[1689Dave]

I have to admit that I never heard of it before y'all started talking about it here. I was more familiar with the Athanasian Creed (from the Lutheran Satire video on St. Patrick and the Trinity) so I had looked up and studied that. I had also studied the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. There was a board that required members to affirm agreement with the Nicene Creed to post as a Christian. In general, I never had any problem with any of them once I understood the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic". I am ok with the catholic church but have some doctrinal issues with the Catholic Church. I have found the Nicene Creed a useful 'shibboleth' for rooting out 'cults'. People that have serious problems with the basics tend to raise red flags that suggest a closer examination is in order. I have problems calling someone "Christian" that denies the deity of Christ or His virgin birth or his death and resurrection.

The Symbol of Chalcedon didn't cause me any heartburn either. There was nothing in there that I had a problem with. I saw Van's point that one COULD nit pick words to create biblical untruth, but nothing prevents people from doing that with Scripture and we don't advocate restricting Bibles to Professional Clergy. So that seems a poor excuse to be "hating" on creeds.

I think that JonC has made a valid point that Creeds fall below scripture in authority. I don't think for a minute that you would disagree with that. Where the usefulness of creeds and the danger of rejecting them completely lies is in an area of advice given me by a mentor. He told me that if I discovered a meaning in scripture that no one else in 2000 years had ever seen, I was almost certainly wrong and should proceed with extreme caution.. In the same spirit, if you believe something that contradicts the earliest ecumenical creeds, there is a high probability that what you believe is not correct and you should proceed with extreme caution.

The creeds serve as a warning fence that one may be drifting too far off the path for safety. Like a guardrail, they are not meant to replace a GPS or a roadmap, they are just a warning from those that traveled the road before you to keep you from driving off a cliff.

So I am still Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria ... I am just willing to take some advice from Creeds and Confessions and Statements of Faith to see what those that trod this road before me had to say.

All of the Lutheran and Reformed Creeds came from believers in sola scriptura. Perhaps you aren't clear on the matter.

 

[JonC]

I have to admit that I never heard of it before y'all started talking about it here. I was more familiar with the Athanasian Creed (from the Lutheran Satire video on St. Patrick and the Trinity) so I had looked up and studied that. I had also studied the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. There was a board that required members to affirm agreement with the Nicene Creed to post as a Christian. In general, I never had any problem with any of them once I understood the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic". I am ok with the catholic church but have some doctrinal issues with the Catholic Church. I have found the Nicene Creed a useful 'shibboleth' for rooting out 'cults'. People that have serious problems with the basics tend to raise red flags that suggest a closer examination is in order. I have problems calling someone "Christian" that denies the deity of Christ or His virgin birth or his death and resurrection.

The Symbol of Chalcedon didn't cause me any heartburn either. There was nothing in there that I had a problem with. I saw Van's point that one COULD nit pick words to create biblical untruth, but nothing prevents people from doing that with Scripture and we don't advocate restricting Bibles to Professional Clergy. So that seems a poor excuse to be "hating" on creeds.

I think that JonC has made a valid point that Creeds fall below scripture in authority. I don't think for a minute that you would disagree with that. Where the usefulness of creeds and the danger of rejecting them completely lies is in an area of advice given me by a mentor. He told me that if I discovered a meaning in scripture that no one else in 2000 years had ever seen, I was almost certainly wrong and should proceed with extreme caution.. In the same spirit, if you believe something that contradicts the earliest ecumenical creeds, there is a high probability that what you believe is not correct and you should proceed with extreme caution.

The creeds serve as a warning fence that one may be drifting too far off the path for safety. Like a guardrail, they are not meant to replace a GPS or a roadmap, they are just a warning from those that traveled the road before you to keep you from driving off a cliff.

So I am still Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria ... I am just willing to take some advice from Creeds and Confessions and Statements of Faith to see what those that trod this road before me had to say.

The Athanasian Creed is the "standard" for Reformed Theology, Lutheran doctrine, even Catholic doctrine. So I think that is why we hear of it so often.

Those who are Calvinists are dependent on the Belgic Confession which was based on three creeds -the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed. So the Athanasian Creed. is probably the most often cited.

But the Athanasian Creed was written a little over a century after the Chalcedonian Creed (the Chalcedonian Creed was written in 451 AD, the Athanasian creed around 570 AD). The Athanaisan Creed is usually considered the standard of orthodoxy because it is better developed and expresses the faith of the Church. We do not know the details of it's origin and it is often referred to as the Quicunque Vult (from the first words of the creed). The creed came to be called the Athanasian Creed because in the middle ages it was attributed to Athanisus.

As Baptists, however, we view these creeds as useful (certainly interesting) in explaining the nature of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Uniion. But we do not consider the creeds an authority for our doctrine.

 

[JonC]

The creeds give a full overview most are unaware of, and therefore easily led astray. I think we proved that here.

They are useful in describing common belief. The standard of orthodoxy is the latter creed - the Athanasian Creed (the quicunque vult). And as far as I know you are the only person who has objected to Christ being One Person, completely God, completely man.

If you think another member has rejected that Christ is " One Person, completely God, completely man" then please provide a quote so that we can examine it. Even here the standard is Scripture and not the creed (whether the 5th Century Chalcedonian Creed or the 6th Century Athanasian Creed).

I personally believe that the Roman Catholic Church was born an apostate (not a church) in the fourth century (a century before the Chalcedonian Creed). There were Christians within the structure, but the church itself (from a Baptist perspective) was false. To submit to the authority of either creed is to submit to the Roman Catholic Church because that is where the authority originated. But to say that either or both creeds are useful or accurate in its description and definitions is another.

So while I do agree (obviously) with both the Chalcedonian Creed and the Athanasian Creed I view the Anthansian as superior as it was an expression of orthodox faith rather than a reaction to heresies (the Chalcedonian Counsel addressed Arianism, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism,and Nestorianism). Developed theology is always a better expression than reactionary theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was defending nothing, I just don't particularly like your posts.
You are a 'passive-agressive' anti-Calvinist troll.

(and the word is "smoke screen" as in "something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead" ... your post is a "screed" as in "a ranting piece of writing") - that was my passive-agressive response, just helping you out with your vocabulary.

How did we get from trying to understand how to view the person of Jesus to full blown rant on Calvinism by Van?

 

[atpollard]

All of the Lutheran and Reformed Creeds came from believers in sola scriptura. Perhaps you aren't clear on the matter.

So did the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I have read and found too archaic in grammar and verbiage for my taste (same complaint I have with the KJV and Shakesphere). That does not mean that I agree with every word on the WCF or that I would ever hold it equal in authority to Scripture. So what part of this matter am I not clear on? Sola Scriptura means "Scripture Alone" and Scripture" is the 66 books that are recognized as God Breathed. Commentaries, even great commentaries, on those 66 books are not Scripture. That is just a fact.

 

[Yeshua1]

Baptist Confession of faith !

All of theI am not anti either, as like to use the onfession, and Lutheran and Reformed Creeds came from believers in sola scriptura. Perhaps you aren't clear on the matter.

Can one know and understand the theology and doctrines of the Bible without any Creed or Confession?

 

[Yeshua1]

So did the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I have read and found too archaic in grammar and verbiage for my taste (same complaint I have with the KJV and Shakesphere). That does not mean that I agree with every word on the WCF or that I would ever hold LBCF, but in a modern version! it equal in authority to Scripture. So what part of this matter am I not clear on? Sola Scriptura means "Scripture Alone" and Scripture" is the 66 books that are recognized as God Breathed. Commentaries, even great commentaries, on those 66 books are not Scripture. That is just a fact.

I like using the 1689 LBCF, but in a modernized english version!

 

[atpollard]

I like using the 1689 LBCF, but in a modernized english version!

I've read that, too.

To my surprise, I really liked the Heidelberg Catechism. It did a good job of presenting the important stuff without getting in the weeds on the fine points that people like to argue over.

 

[Van]

I was defending nothing, I just don't particularly like your posts.
You are a 'passive-agressive' anti-Calvinist troll.

(and the word is "smoke screen" as in "something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead" ... your post is a "screed" as in "a ranting piece of writing") - that was my passive-agressive response, just helping you out with your vocabulary.

Liberals tell others twaddle.

 

[Van]

FACT CHECK:

The QUESTION:
The Answer (post #97):
DOES POST #97 "ANSWER" THE QUESTION?
DOES POST #97 "ADDRESS" THE QUESTION?
Let the reader decide for themselves.

I quoted the creed so I addressed and answered the question, what does the creed say.
More gibberish smokescreed.

 

[Van]

The creeds only summarize the bible topics. Do you have any books? Why those and not the creeds?

I support biblical doctrines from scripture, which is a distinctive of Baptists. Sola Scripture ring a bell?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

IMHO, the primary Baptist Distinctive is:

The Bible is our only rule for Faith and Practice.

Creeds, confessions, and statements of Faith are useful. But, one must be careful to read creeds, confessions, and statements of faith through the lens of Scripture and not the other way around.

 

[1689Dave]

I support biblical doctrines from scripture, which is a distinctive of Baptists. Sola Scripture ring a bell?

Why do you think I do not? The Creeds are biblical doctrines from scripture.

 

[1689Dave]

Baptist Confession of faith !
Can one know and understand the theology and doctrines of the Bible without any Creed or Confession?

Not in depth. It takes the wisdom of combined learning over the centuries that you are incapable of.