Is Christ "completely God, completely flesh"?

So the answer is "no", you have no formal study of the topic.

This is apparent and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Many would make the mistakes you have made in your assumptions.

To help, Baptists do not go to Ecumenical creeds to define orthodoxy. The creeds may express what a baptist believes, but they are not an authority of Baptist faith. You could reject the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (which you have) and still be "baptist". You cannot look to Ecumenical authority as a standard of orthodoxy and be Baptist. So you are mistaken, you are not (by definition) a Baptist (although you assume you are).

The "orthodox Christian" understanding of the Trinity is expressed in the Athanasian Creed. The Creed was not initially attributed to Athanasian (it was written in the 5th Century AD) but came to be associated with Athanasius of Alexandria in the Medieval period. This is why it is often called the Pseudo-Athanasian creed but probably should be referred to as the Quicunque Valt. It is the Christian statement of Belief regarding orthodox Christian doctrine and was the reference used by the Belgic Confession.

Orthodox Christian belief is that Christ is "fully man, fully God" - not in nature only and not in body only (not Apollinarianism or neo-Apollinarianism). The creeds do a good job of this by specifying that Christ is "fully man, fully God" but also "one in person" (not a "split personality" and not "multiple personalities").

You have an interest in Christian doctrine, which is good, but if you want to study theology and venture in these type of discussions it would benefit you to actually know what you are talking about. You do not have to study at a seminary like many of us did, but at least study under a mentor.

 

The problem here is we are defending the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, specifically regarding Christ, against @1689Dave when an acceptance of this doctrine is a criteria of membership.

Debating the truth that Christ is One Person, two natures, fully man, fully God is not a debate that should be going on in this forum. We can debate what "nature" and "person" means, but departure from the doctrine itself is a "strong heresy" within the Christian faith and on this board.

 

Let me say this also - for clarity:

I could say that I reject all Ecumenical creeds and believe that Christ is One Person, fully God, fully man and be within Orthodox Christianity in terms of my doctrine of the Trinity. I would also be within Baptist Theology in rejecting the authority of the creeds.

But if I said a departure from an Ecumenical Creed constitutes a heresy or an unorthodox belief then I cannot be Baptist by definition.

 

There are several threads on this but traditionally the definition includes:

1. Biblical Authority
3. Autonomy of the local church
4. Priesthood of the Believer
5. Separation of Church and State
6. Believers Baptism
7. Individual Soul Liberty

Some add Two Offices (pastor and deacon) while others argue that deacon is not actually an "office". People also use different terms.

A Baptist church does not fall under another church. A Baptist does not appeal to Ecumenical Creeds for authority. A Baptist does not seek "Christendom" in terms of a State Church. That kind of thing.

Ultimately as far as this board goes the determination belongs to the Administration.

 

Someone (@Squire Robertsson ?) posted the distnctives using BAPTIST as an acronym. But I cant remember the acronym.

 

Soul Liberty (or "soul competency" as it was called when I was a kid) means that we have the freedom to choose what our conscience or soul dictates. I think when This is not a justification for disobeying God. Basically a person should not act against his or her conscience of what is right. This is a nod to the Baptist standpoint of church and state. An atheist doing the right things to be a Christian is still an atheist kind of thinking. More to the point, if I believe that it is wrong to eat fried chicken in a fellowship hall (a belief I strongly disavow, but am using for illustration) then I have the freedom act in that conviction. This can go so far as to exclude one from a church membership without casting a disparaging attitude on the state of my soul. Most of the time this seems to concern a view, doctrine, or interpretation that is within orthodox Christian faith but not commonly shared in a congregation.

I am a Southern Baptist. As such I have no official creed. We do have the Baptist Faith and Message which is a statement of "generally held convictions" but many SBC churches do not hold to the Baptist Faith and Message in full (they do not have to in part).

The reason that insisting others affirm a Creed is the placement of the creed in authority. It is Scripture, and not the Creed, that is the Baptist's authority. This does not mean that creeds and confessions are not useful, as they often are. I am SBC and the SBC statement of faith expresses my view. But it does not define my view.

For the Baptist creeds, confessions, statements of faith, covenants, etc. are descriptive of belief - NEVER prescriptive. That is the difference. With the Apostle's Creed Baptists would affirm it as true, but not because it is the Apostle's Creed.

 

It's the bar in the basement. Enough booze covers a lot of error.

 

A good seminar teaches objectively and allows the student the liberty to make his own conclusions.

People need to speak about what they know. Here you have made several simple errors that would have been prevented with a basic (even undergraduate) education of Christian history.

But you double down on error (like your misunderstanding of the history of the Athanasian Creed.... You assumed it was a fourth century work, did not realize it was the Reformed position expressed in the Belgic Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession).

You look to the 1689 Confession as an authority while rejecting the doctrines upon which it was established. This would have been prevented with adequate study.

 

So you fall outside of the orthodox position by accusing Christians of denying Scripture or being lost for stating Christ is "completely God, completely human".

You think, in error, that means "two persons". Yet the 1689 Confession depends on the Athanasian Creed (this creed was instrumental to the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort).