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

[Yeshua1]

You never stated that Jesus suffering was in his human nature? His growing in the human nature? His miracles in his divine nature?

Jesus was never able to physical die if he was just God, so had to be also a man, and he had to have the human nature, as one cannot be human with being found human natured!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was never able to physical die if he was just God, so had to be also a man, and he had to have the human nature, as one cannot be human with being found human natured!

Did God die a physical death on the cross?

(And to be fair, @Martin Marprelate mentioned calming the seas. Not you).

 

[Yeshua1]

Did God die?

(And to be fair, @Martin Marprelate mentioned calming the seas. Not you).

Jesus physically died, and he was God!

 

[JonC]

Jesus physically died, and he was God!

So God experienced death for us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What scriptures affirm to us Jesus was just the nature of God, period?

.OK. Let's do this.

Yes, let's do it! Where are your Scriptures?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok. Let's do this.

You have stated that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures. Jesus suffered in his human nature and calmed the seas in his divine nature.

This not only denies the Creed's claim that these natures are inseparable but assumes a different meaning for "natures" which is a denial of the creed itself.

Do you (and @TCassidy ) see what I am saying?

The creed defines these natures in Christ. If Jesus uses these natures separately (eats in one nature, heals the sick in another) then this is an entirely different situation than is addressed in the creed.

You are confusing the Chalcedon Creed with Nestorianism. Chalcedon makes it clear that Christ is only one Person. Yet He was God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God. Christ suffered; Christ calmed the seas. But when we see Him become tired and needing to sleep, which is not something that God needs to do (Isaiah 40:28), we know that it is because He is a man, man as if He were not God. And when we see Him calm the wind and waves with a word, we know that this is something only God can do. Christ is God, God as if He were not man. But Christ does not do one thing 'in His human nature' and another thing 'in His divine nature.' That is Nestorianism which the creed was composed, in part, to oppose. He is not two people in one body-- the man Jesus and the divine Son as Nestorius taught. Christ is one hypostasis in two physeis. A single Person with two natures.

 

[JonC]

Yes, let's do it! Where are your Scriptures?

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1. I believe that the passage is speaking of Christ. Jesus is the λόγος (the Logos, the Word).

2. The Word (again, I believe this is Jesus Christ - the Son) became flesh.

I believe this means that the Word (which I identify as the Son) became flesh (became man).

Here we have Jesus NOT losing his divinity but becoming man.

In John 5:8 Jesus makes Himself equal with God.

In John 10 Jesus says that He and the Father are One.

In Col. 2:9 Paul says that in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

In Phil. 2 Paul describes Christ as existing in the form of God but not regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped. He emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of man submitted even to death on a cross.

These verses PROVES that Jesus is God and Man.

There are no verses that prove Jesus is less God than God or more man than man.

These verses show He is very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.

 

[JonC]

You are confusing the Chalcedon Creed with Nestorianism. Chalcedon makes it clear that Christ is only one Person. Yet He was God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God. Christ suffered; Christ calmed the seas. But when we see Him become tired and needing to sleep, which is not something that God needs to do (Isaiah 40:28), we know that it is because He is a man, man as if He were not God. And when we see Him calm the wind and waves with a word, we know that this is something only God can do. Christ is God, God as if He were not man. But Christ does not do one thing 'in His human nature' and another thing 'in His divine nature.' That is Nestorianism which the creed was composed, in part, to oppose. He is not two people in one body-- the man Jesus and the divine Son as Nestorius taught. Christ is one hypostasis in two physeis. A single Person with two natures.

You are seeing a separation of natures that do not exist in the Chalecedon Creed (literally) Not man "as if he were not God" or God "as if he were not man" but God-man. That is the Chalecedon Creed. And THAT is the orthodox position of Christianity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1. I believe that the passage is speaking of Christ. Jesus is the λόγος (the Logos, the Word).

2. The Word (again, I believe this is Jesus Christ - the Son) became flesh.

I believe this means that the Word (which I identify as the Son) became flesh (became man).

Here we have Jesus NOT losing his divinity but becoming man.

In John 5:8 Jesus makes Himself equal with God.

In John 10 Jesus says that He and the Father are One.

In Col. 2:9 Paul says that in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

In Phil. 2 Paul describes Christ as existing in the form of God but not regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped. He emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of man submitted even to death on a cross.

These verses PROVES that Jesus is God and Man.

There are no verses that prove Jesus is less God than God or more man than man.

These verses show He is very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.

Yes, I can agree with all that, save perhaps the penultimate line. Jesus is not less than God, but God is more than Jesus; He is also Father and Holy Spirit. But what is your objection to Chalcedon and what Scriptures do you use to substantiate your disagreement?

 

[JonC]

Yes, I can agree with all that, save perhaps the penultimate line. Jesus is not less than God, but God is more than Jesus; He is also Father and Holy Spirit. But what is your objection to Chalcedon and what Scriptures do you use to substantiate your disagreement?

I don't object to the Chalcedon Creed. I disagreed with one interpretation (the change from "inseparable" to "separate and distinct"). And I objected to the creed being an authority.

 

[JonC]

Yes, I can agree with all that, save perhaps the penultimate line. Jesus is not less than God, but God is more than Jesus; He is also Father and Holy Spirit. But what is your objection to Chalcedon and what Scriptures do you use to substantiate your disagreement?

I understand the "persons" aspect. But how does Jesus being not all God (or God being more than an Jesus) work with Paul's words that "all the fullness of God dwelt in him"?

And does this mean that God is the sum of the Persons (Father + Son + Spirit)?

 

[agedman]

One person, who has now residing within Himself both the natures of God and Human, separate and distinct, and yet always one in agreement...

And from what Scripture do you support such thinking?

 

[agedman]

Mary was the Mother of Jesus, as she was the very source of His humanity, and His Virgin Birth allowed Him to bypass being affected by the fall with her sin nature...

Again your lack of Scripture to support this is alarming.

 

[agedman]

Jesus was never able to physical die if he was just God, so had to be also a man, and he had to have the human nature, as one cannot be human with being found human natured!

Wow, perhaps you need to tell the coroner or mortician this.

Desecration of the dead is a crime.

One can not argue that the human ceases to be just because what you term as “nature” is missing.

That actually seems Darwinian influenced, in which a human is not human unless certain criteria is met.

 

[agedman]

You are confusing the Chalcedon Creed with Nestorianism. Chalcedon makes it clear that Christ is only one Person. Yet He was God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God. Christ suffered; Christ calmed the seas. But when we see Him become tired and needing to sleep, which is not something that God needs to do (Isaiah 40:28), we know that it is because He is a man, man as if He were not God. And when we see Him calm the wind and waves with a word, we know that this is something only God can do. Christ is God, God as if He were not man. But Christ does not do one thing 'in His human nature' and another thing 'in His divine nature.' That is Nestorianism which the creed was composed, in part, to oppose. He is not two people in one body-- the man Jesus and the divine Son as Nestorius taught. Christ is one hypostasis in two physeis. A single Person with two natures.

Martin,

“Physeis” was first used by the Greeks to mean the “physical” not the study of relationships of the body to stimulation and input.

For you to extend “physeis” to incorporate such as temperament, intellect, ... is beyond the original use.

For the reader, we derive physical and physics from “physeis”. Both having to do with the structure and force of material and matter.

Therefore, it is debatable as to why the Chalcedonian Creed would use “natura” when the best word would have been “physeis” as it relates to the full human (being found as a man) and was historically how the ancients considered the body of Christ.

Therefore, the creed may certainly be taken as accurate, but not if one supposes fleshly personality attributes (temperament, intellect, ...) were part of the mix.

Christ was 100% physically human and 100% fully God, inseparable, in complete harmony, with a single will, singleness of thought, singleness of desire, and singleness in return (no spiritual return while leaving the body with the father - same in the grave. He was at all times eternally linked to the Father and took upon Himself flesh.

At no place does the Scripture state he took upon Himself human personality traits of which modern science portrays as “nature.”

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are seeing a separation of natures that do [sic] not exist in the Chalecedon Creed (literally) Not man "as if he were not God" or God "as if he were not man" but God-man. That is the Chalecedon Creed. And THAT is the orthodox position of Christianity.

I'm sorry if you find my expression confusing; as I have written elsewhere, it is not original to me but it seems to sum up Chalcedon rather well.
'.....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.....' The two natures are not blended or confused. Christ is real God and real man. Man as if He were not God; God as if He were not man. It seems rather clear to me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand the "persons" aspect. But how does Jesus being not all God (or God being more than an Jesus) work with Paul's words that "all the fullness of God dwelt in him"?

As I've said, Jesus is fully God; I have no problem with Colossians 1:19 or 2:9. His Deity was not hamstrung by His humanity when He stilled the storm or raised Lazarus from the dead. But although Jesus is God, God is not Jesus. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And does this mean that God is the sum of the Persons (Father + Son + Spirit)?

No. All the fullness of God dwells in Father, Son and Spirit.

So what is your understanding?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

“Physeis” was first used by the Greeks to mean the “physical” not the study of relationships of the body to stimulation and input.

For you to extend “physeis” to incorporate such as temperament, intellect, ... is beyond the original use.

Where exactly have I done that? I absolutely do not believe that Christ had two temperaments or two wills. He had a human nature and a divine nature, but He did not have two wills. He could be hungry and thirsty, tired and weary; He could be tempted, which are things that apply to man and not God. He knew the thoughts and desires of all men (John 2:24-25) and had power of the elements and over death, and was without sin, which are things that apply to God and not man. As man, He prayed to the Father; the Father did not pray to Him. After His baptism, 'the Spirit immediately drove Him out into the wilderness' (Mark 1:12). He did not drive or send the Spirit anywhere until after His ascension.

Therefore, the creed may certainly be taken as accurate, but not if one supposes fleshly personality attributes (temperament, intellect, ...) were part of the mix.

I do not do so.

Christ was 100% physically human and 100% fully God,

Yes.

inseparable,

No. The Father sent the Son. That implies separation. The Son could be hungry (Matthew 4:2). The Father does not feel hunger.

in complete harmony, with a single will,

Yes.

singleness of thought,

Christ could be tempted (Hebrews 4:15). At Gethsemane, He shrank from what He was about to face. "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.....'

singleness of desire,

Yes, for the glory of God. '......nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will' (Matthew 26:39). See also John 12:27.

and singleness in return (no spiritual return while leaving the body with the father - same in the grave.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You'll have to explain further.

He was at all times eternally linked to the Father and took upon Himself flesh.

No. That sounds like Sabellianism.

At no place does the Scripture state he took upon Himself human personality traits of which modern science portrays as “nature.”

See above.

 

[JonC]

As I've said, Jesus is fully God; I have no problem with Colossians 1:19 or 2:9. His Deity was not hamstrung by His humanity when He stilled the storm or raised Lazarus from the dead. But although Jesus is God, God is not Jesus. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
No. All the fullness of God dwells in Father, Son and Spirit.

So what is your understanding?

My understanding is that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ and it is only through him we can know God (he is given to man as God's self-revelation). Also, all the fullness of God dwells in the Father. And in the Spirit.

So in my understanding when we behold the Son we behold God (fully, not partly). When we consider the Father and Spirit we consider God (fully, not partly).

I believe God in three Persons (not as a sum..i.e. divided into three Persons).

Does that help clarify my view?

 

[robycop3]

Creeds are man-made; Scripture is God-given. Let's go forward with that in mind.