Heresy poll: Christology

[Gold Dragon]

This poll is a series associated with this post about the fundamentals of our faith.

Theology poll
Christology poll
Soteriology poll
Baptist theology poll
Fundamental vs Liberal poll
Other issues poll

Not believing in which of the above would be heretical?

 

[OldRegular]

I personally think the listing is somewhat confusing!

1. Jesus Christ is the Incarnate God. Saying that Jesus is God ignores His human nature.

2. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God!

3. Jesus Christ was not created. He was born of the Virgin Mary!

4. Jesus Christ was both human and divine. However God {divinity} cannot be born; He is eternal!

5. Jesus Christ was fully human but He was also fully divine!

6. It appears you are implying {By the titles you apply.} that the the two natures/wills of Jesus Christ is heretical. I present FYI the Chalcedon Creed:

Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451)
This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine known as the Hypostatic Union) that are unified in one person. Related to this issue, please see the Communicatio Idiomatum.

________________________

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 reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] 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, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; 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.

http://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

7. It seems to me {By the titles you apply.} that you are implying that believing that the divine nature of Jesus Christ is a distinct person from God the Father is heresy. I refer you to the 1646 Baptist Confession:

The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures. 1 Cor. 8:6, Isa. 44:6, 46:9, Exod. 3:14, 1 Tim 6:16, Isa. 43:15; Ps. 147:5, Deut. 32:3; Job 36:5; Jer. 10:12, Exod. 34:6,7, Acts 17:28; Rom. 11:36.
II.
In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties. 1 Cor. 1:3; John 1:1, 15:26, Exod. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1646.htm

8. The Trinity is defined above {#7}!

 

[Gold Dragon]

6. It appears you are implying {By the titles you apply.} that the the two natures/wills of Jesus Christ is heretical. I present FYI the Chalcedon Creed:


7. It seems to me {By the titles you apply.} that you are implying that believing that the divine nature of Jesus Christ is a distinct person from God the Father is heresy. I refer you to the 1646 Baptist Confession:

The statements I was using are the orthodox statement. In brackets are the historical heresies/groups that believed differently to that orthodox statement and required ecumenical councils like Chalcedon and Nicea where creeds were crafted for Christian orthodoxy to clarify their heretical status.

 

[JamesL]

plenty of heretical people/groups believe that Jesus is the "son" (or Son) of God.

The distinction rests in what is meant by "son"

offspring from a sexual union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother? (Mormonism)

first created being? (Jehovah's Witnesses)

others have an ambiguous usage without any objectivity. They assent to the verbiage, but have no concrete understanding

Even many who use the verbiage of "Eternal Son" or "Eternally begotten" have no idea what those are even supposed to mean.

So is assent to verbiage enough to consider someone "orthodox", or is a proper understanding essential?


If proper understanding is the litmus test, then I believe many here would fail

 

[JamesL]

I refer you to the 1646 Baptist Confession:!

Ummm, why not refer to scripture?

Such a shame that for "essential" doctrines, one can only point to creeds and confessions instead of scripture

 

[JonC]

Ummm, why not refer to scripture?



Such a shame that for "essential" doctrines, one can only point to creeds and confessions instead of scripture

Heresy is an orthodox interpretation or view. This based on accepted view or interpretation. OR is right to point to confessions.

 

[HankD]

Ummm, why not refer to scripture?

Such a shame that for "essential" doctrines, one can only point to creeds and confessions instead of scripture

That's because many "essential" doctrine are only partially supported in multiple places in the scriptures. It requires the whole counsel of God to be brought together in a systematic method with each scripture shown in its context and harmonized with the others.

The scripture itself (IMO) approves of this methodology:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Ummm, why not refer to scripture?

Such a shame that for "essential" doctrines, one can only point to creeds and confessions instead of scripture

If you will simply note the quotes from the 1646 Confession includes numerous Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

That's because many "essential" doctrine are only partially supported in multiple places in the scriptures. It requires the whole counsel of God to be brought together in a systematic method with each scripture shown in its context and harmonized with the others.

The scripture itself (IMO) approves of this methodology:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

HankD

Correctly stated and much appreciated!

 

[HankD]

Correctly stated and much appreciated!

Sure, these peripheral works are tools which have been used for millennia.

They don't take the place of or outweigh scripture but subjectively categorize the scripture.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure, these peripheral works are tools which have been used for millennia.

They don't take the place of or outweigh scripture but subjectively categorize the scripture.

HankD

They are useuil outlines to what the major doctrines taught in the Bible are, but not to be seen as being authorative to use, apart from the Bible itself...