Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

The Chalcedonan Creed is developed theology.
You claim to hold to to that creed.
Are you holding to a false and untested teaching?

My point is that no member on the Baptist section on the forum has attacked the Chalcedonan Creed except perhaps you with your misunderstanding of "perfect" as used in the creed.

You are the only member who has attacked Reformed Theogy in regards to its view of the Hypostatic Union.

You are the only member on this thread who has attacked the Athanasian Creed in regard to Christ.

Ironically, you hold these creeds as the measure of truth.

 

But you attack those creeds (you attack the meaning of "perfect" in the Chalcedonan Creed and you attack "completely God, completely man" in the Athanasian Creed).

At the same time you hold the creeds as a standard for your doctrine.

By your standard you prove yourself wrong.

The bottom line is you are just confused and do not understand Baptist Theogy or the Creeds you idolize.

I think your actual belief is fine, but you are horribly wrong and confused in what you reject.

 

With the Chalcedonan Creed many debates were involved. The Council was trying to address several popular heresies that had arisen.

That is the reason for the language of the creed.

Christ being "perfectly man" (completely human) and “co-essential with us” addressed the heresy of Apollinarianism - that Christ had a human body, a lower spirit, but humanity was just added to divinity (the heresy Christ was not fully human).

Christ being “co-essential with the Father” and “perfectly God” addressed Arianism. “two nature, indivisible, without mixture, immutable” addresses Eutychianism. “One person” “indivisibly, inseparably” addresses Nestorianism.

Not only is the Chalcedonan Creed a product of debates concerning the popular heresies involving the nature of Christ but it is a product of debates concerning the language used. The words “person” was a particularly “hot” debate.

The Athanasian creed may not have involved as much debate as it seems to be more of an expression of orthodoxy. But at least we can say that it stands on previous creeds and draws from the Chalcedonian Creed.

 

Do you consider the Roman Catholic Church a "God anointed Teacher"?

The issue still remains that you attack the Chalcedonan Creed while claiming to hold it as if you were a devoted Catholic. Except for you we all believe the creed correct, and you are the only one in submission to the creed .

All cults see their teacher as "God's given teachers". We have to go back to Scripture as our authority.

 

Why am I not surprised the Catholic Encyclopedia is your "go to" for doctrine?

Baptists baptize int he name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because of Scripture, not Catholic Doctrine.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

I do not believe "name" means using the words but baptizing into the faith (in the manner of Christ - His death, burial and resurrection).

How do you explain Matthew where Christ says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?