The Chalcedonian Creed: Fact, Fiction, or Something Between?

No. I quoted Paul - "all the fullness of God dwells in Him bodily" and the author of Hebrews that He "is the exact representation of His [God's] nature", and Jesus "I and my Father are One.".

I should have clarified those were passages rather than my own words. Sorry.

 

I understand you mean well, and are just trying to argue your position. But please be careful with the assumptions and suggestions. I am not lying. I do not “know perfectly well” that you are not disagreeing with Chalcedon and in fact I believe that is EXACTLY what you are doing.:

I believe your view of “nature” does not seem consistent with the Chalcedonian formula. I believe it is a result of postmodernism (which has a tendency to reach back to antiquity, decontextualize ideas only to reinvent them as their own). What I believe you may hold to is not the Chalcedonian Creed but a neo-Calcedonian Creed because your view appears to deny the original by redefining terms.

What I believe you affirm in this neo-Calcedonian view, that Jesus was “God as if he were not man” and “man as if he were not God” is a separation that the Creed sought earnestly to guard against.

Given your misunderstanding in the previous statement (that I was saying one thing while in fact aware of the opposite), I do not doubt you really believe my view that Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man to be Sabellianism.

Here is where you are wrong – I do believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity. You never bothered to consider how I believed that but instead jumped onto my comment that “all the fulness of God dwells in Christ bodily”. Thay may be your denial of my position but that is not the main part where we differ.

Where I mostly object to your view (and where you fail the Calcedonian standard as I understand the Creed) is that you seem to replace God-man with God + man. You seem to present Jesus as God speaking to the seas to be calm (ignoring, of course, He was in a physical body on a boat using that physical body to utter the words to calm the sea).

So it seems (to me) that you are suggesting Jesus was man as if he were not God and He was God ss if He were not man.

Here is exactly where I stand – If anyone says that Jesus was man is if He were not God then that person has committed heresy. If anyone says that Jesus was God as if He were not man then that person has committed heresy. We can NEVER belittle Christ in order to support our theories or theologies.

Jesus is God and Jesus is man. There is nothing to be taken away from that statement. God-man. As the Creed states – inseparable. Period.

 

I believe that no one can see God and live - and no one has seen God - except as revealed in Christ.

That does not mean there are no other Persons of the Trinity. It does not mean the other Persons do not act (they are not benign when it comes to man). When Jesus was baptized the Father spoke and the Spirit descended upon Him. God is One in three persons.

Moses could not see the glory of God and live. The bearers of the Arc could not touch it and live. God is transcendent. But in Christ He is God with us.

But how can you reconcile that no one can see God and live with the fact Jehovah appeared to Abraham?

Do you believe God changed how He operates when it comes to the New Testament (i.e , the Father is silent to men except through Christ in the NT only, but the reverse is true in the OT)?

 

Again, Martin, I am gong to have to ask you so please stop implying that I am lying. I really did mean what I stated (my comments are not yours to interpret, they are mine to clarify which I did).

I believe the theory that Jesus was God as if God alone and man as if man alone is one heresy that the Fourth Ecumenical Council sought to address by insisting that these natures are unconfused, unchangeable, indivisible and inseparable.

I believe the belief that Jesus can be observed acting as God as if not man and man as if not God is Nestorianism. Nestorius denied that Mary the title Theotokus (“God-bearer”) favoring that she only bore Christ’s human nature (the argument being she bore Christ – his human nature – because God is eternal and spirit).

I believe the position you have claimed through your posts may be Nestorianism beneath the surface of the Creed (which is why I believe your statements may indicate an affirmation of neo-orthodoxy when it comes to the traditional view).

Here is an example of your expressions I find both unbiblical and in contrast to the Creed.

I have provided both Scripture and quotes from the Creed in arguing against this way of expressing the Son, so I will not repeat them here except to say your expression above does not acknowledge Christ in two natures ”inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably”. Your view as expressed seems very much to deny at least the nature of Christ as expressed in the Creed (and Scripture).

Jesus calmed the sea as if He were God-man because He was God Incarnate. We cannot separate the natures of Christ in his activities on earth or now at the right hand of the Father.

I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have not assigned to your words an attitude of unpleasantness but am just interacting with the statements. I’ve learned long ago not to try to read intent or emotion in posts. Nine times out of ten they end up being false assumptions. No apology needed. I’m sorry you can’t interact without it becoming disagreeable to you.

I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas. We picked up my mother yesterday, so we are getting ready for a nice, quiet Christmas at home.

 

@The Archangel ,

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I am always interested in how other people interpret Scripture. But only saying that my interpretation is not the likely meaning is not helpful to me as, while it lets me know you believe I’ve erred, it does not provide me with what you believe to be the correct interpretation.

The only statement I claimed regarding John 1 is that the prologue teaches that “Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation”.

I believe that John was reaching back, in a way, to Genesis 1. “In the beginning was the Word”. I believe that this does mean that the Son is eternal. He was present in Creation and all things were made through Him (through the Word, pre-incarnate Christ). So I probably will not be swayed that John is most likely not claiming that Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation.

That said, why do you believe that John is not likely referring to Jesus existing prior to the Incarnation with his words “in the beginning was the Word”?

 

The problem is that line of thinking tends towards "person" and not "nature". We see humanity (fully man") displayed and divinity (truly God) displayed. These natures are distinct. BUT they are never separated in Christ (Jesus is never acting as if he were not God; never acting as if he were not man).

That is the error. Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. God-man. At no time is He man as if not God. Never (not even on the cross....where perhaps the greatest reconciliation is observed).

 

I think you may need to read my reply and the passages again.

Do you agree with the Creed that these natures are not mixed (a third type of hybrid nature) but also inseparable (not God and man but God-man)?

I am trying to see how you line up with the "orthodox" view.

 

So your vote is the Creed is somewhere between fact and fiction. I disagree. While the "natures" are not mixed (a hybrid third nature), traditionally the view that Christ "was always both not God, being someone else 'with God' and 'was God' prior to the incarnation" was condemned as heresy (just as it was at Chalcedon). That was one important aspect of the Creed - it established orthodoxy concerning how the natures of Christ are viewed.

Christ being God refers to His "person". In Christ we see both a human and divine nature. God of very God become flesh. No less God than God - no more man than man. But never man as if He were not God.

 

Thank you for explaining your view.

From my understanding @Martin Marprelate holds Jesus to be man as if he was not God and God as if he were not man. Would your view fit in with his (what I consider a "neo-Chalcedonianism" as it holds these natures separate and distinct rather than inseparable)?