Hypostatic Union

[The Archangel]

LOL! Contradicting the Chalcedonian creed is not the definition of the term "heresy"!

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is, essentially, what has been decided to be correct, and it is usually applied to Christian doctrine. So, Nicea laid-out what was "Orthodox" as far as Jesus' divinity. He was "begotten, not made." This "orthodoxy" rendered the Arian position as "heresy." Heresy is that which is outside orthodoxy.

So, Chalcedonian Christology defined the "orthodox" position for Christendom. To hold a position contrary to the established orthodoxy is--by definition--"heresy."

You believe your doctrines of men and learn on creeds as your source of truth all you like. As for me, I will rely on the plain reading of scripture and on sound reason. If you have a biblical argument to make or if you can logically refute the rebuttal I've made against your creed, then I'll read it and respond to it gladly. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about your personal opinions about what is or is not heresy.

Hmmm... The Chalcedonian Christology is not the "doctrines of men." The Chalcedonian discussion sought to bring scripture to bear on the question of how Jesus' humanity and divinity went together. So, the "source" is not the "creed" of Chalcedon, it is scripture. So, again, your lack of understanding is apparent.

The Archangel

 

[CJP69]

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is, essentially, what has been decided to be correct, and it is usually applied to Christian doctrine. So, Nicea laid-out what was "Orthodox" as far as Jesus' divinity. He was "begotten, not made." This "orthodoxy" rendered the Arian position as "heresy." Heresy is that which is outside orthodoxy.

So, Chalcedonian Christology defined the "orthodox" position for Christendom. To hold a position contrary to the established orthodoxy is--by definition--"heresy."

Laughable nonsense.

Hmmm... The Chalcedonian Christology is not the "doctrines of men."

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Chalcedonian discussion sought to bring scripture to bear on the question of how Jesus' humanity and divinity went together. So, the "source" is not the "creed" of Chalcedon, it is scripture. So, again, your lack of understanding is apparent.

The Archangel

The problem is that the creed is what everyone who believe in it cites, not the scripture. They neither know nor care what the argument that they used to establish the creed was. Thus, whether it was intended to be or not, it is, in fact, a doctrine of men.

 

[37818]

So, you deny the Chalcedonian definition of Christology. Ok. That, by definition, is heresy--just as it would be heresy to affirm the Arian position rejected by Nicea in AD 325. So, which of the other options that Chalcedon rejected do you affirm?

The Archangel

Neither the Nicene creed nor Chalcedon creed are Scripture.

 

[CJP69]

Neither the Nicene creed nor Chalcedon creed are Scripture.

Nor are they even derived - in large measure - from scripture and to the extent that they are derived from scripture they are unnecessary precisely because we have scripture!

I have never understood why anyone cares at all about such creeds.