Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

[1689Dave]

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.

But Sola Scriptura is collected and summarized in the creeds.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

Developed theology is mostly untested. The cults all have developed theology, untested, and proven false when challenged by the reactionary versions.

 

[JonC]

Developed theology is mostly untested. The cults all have developed theology, untested, and proven false when challenged by the reactionary versions.

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.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

How many debates were involved?

 

[JonC]

But Sola Scriptura is collected and summarized in the creeds.

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.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

What's wrong with studying the Bible under God-ordained teachers? One day, if not already, God will send strong delusion to those who do not have a love for the truth.

 

[JonC]

How many debates were involved?

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.

 

[JonC]

What's wrong with studying the Bible under God-ordained teachers? One day, if not already, God will send strong delusion to those who do not have a love for the truth.

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.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

You do. Get this;
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

 

[1689Dave]

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.

How many showed up for debates in the Westminster Confession?

 

[JonC]

You do. Get this;
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

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."

 

[1689Dave]

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."

How do you explain Acts where they always baptized in Jesus' name?

 

[JonC]

How do you explain Acts where they always baptized in Jesus' name?

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

We have access to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and think He can understand and reveal to us what he inspired best!

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you explain Acts where they always baptized in Jesus' name?

It meant that they were still immersed as at end of Matthews Gospel!

 

[Yeshua1]

Developed theology is mostly untested. The cults all have developed theology, untested, and proven false when challenged by the reactionary versions.

Tested by scriptures alone!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

They were all Jews there in acts, and they would have identified Peter as saying there Jesus was real Messiah and Lord!

 

[1689Dave]

Tested by scriptures alone!

The Scriptures can say what you want them to say. But debate settles it.

 

[1689Dave]

It meant that they were still immersed as at end of Matthews Gospel!

They always baptized in Jesus' name until the Catholics changed it.

 

[1689Dave]

We have access to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and think He can understand and reveal to us what he inspired best!

Are you saying God doesn't use Creeds?