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

[JonC]

I am using the translation of the Creed that you copied out in the O.P. If you believe that it is incorrect, why did you use it? Just read it again; it is perfectly clear. One Person in two natures.

Now where have I ever removed 'inseparable'? If I had, it would indeed have been a form of Nestorianism, but of course I never have and so your allegation is false. What I do say is that you cannot take the word 'inseparable' and bounce up and down on it like a trampoline without taking into account the other words in the Creed. The Person of Christ cannot be separated into two as Nestorius sought to do, but He has a human and a divine nature. As man, He could be in only one place at a time (John 11:6, 15) but as God He was in heaven at the same time He was on earth (John 3:13), but it is the same Son of Man. If you say that as God He could only be in one place at a time, you have made Christ less God than God.

Not my use, but the usage of Chalcedon and all the Protestant confessions that I am aware of. Are you possibly confusing the ousia of Nicea with the physeis of Chalcedon?

I don't think that the translation of the Creed is incorrect.

You removed "inseparable" in your explanation (Jesus did something in one nature separated from the other). We have to treat all of the descriptive words of the two natures as a whole (as the Creed itself shows). The Creed was formed to combat heresies - we can't look at the natures at one time as being distinct (without "inseparable") and at another time as inseparable without being "distinct".

The descriptions the Creed offers were not meant as choices we can use to fit into our theories but rather how the authors of the Creed believed Christ's nature to be. Your view is, I believe, reflective of postmodernism because you want to adhere to the older things of our faith but only on your own terms. So you redefine "nature" to mean "person".

My only point is that when Jesus suffered this demonstrated His humanity. But Jesus did not suffer apart from it being in both natures.

The confusion you have now is what caused division shortly after the Creed. You are using "nature" as if it were "person". Jesus did not suffer in any nature. He did not calm the sea in any nature. Our nature is demonstrated by our actions and what we can experience. But we experience things and do things in our person.

This is a form of Nestorianism because while you affirm two "natures" you change the actual meaning to "person" in practice (i.e., Jesus suffered in his human nature because God cannot suffer). It is the same as saying God did not become flesh because God is not man and God is spirit.

That is why I asked if you really believed that the Word became flesh. It isn't because I doubt you do but rather than your theory dictates you don't. You are inconsistent. But given your intelligence I believe it is something you simply have not thought through.

 

[The Archangel]

Good morning Archangel.

I understand that you may respond without recalling exactly what I had said (I referred to Christ’s baptism). That’s fine. We all make mistakes at times. But I am not going to take time at length to discuss the errors you made as you attempted to present my view. My experience is that you often find yourself emotionally tied to these dialogues so I'll just cut to the chase.

My point is that the all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. We know God only through Christ. And I believe that the Old Testament saints also knew God only through the Word. I believe that God is immutable and the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is not something that changes. I believe that the Old Testament Promise was always the Word becoming flesh, i.e., "God with us". And I believe the the Old Testament foreshadowed this not only in prophetic word but also in God interacting with mankind.

Perhaps our disagreement is in my affirmation that the Word is eternally begotten. If this is something you reject (which would explain a lot) then we can examine this on the thread concerning that topic.

We can disagree on these things without being enemies. You do know this, right?

You are arguing against things I never said. That has now become the issue. I've said now several times that I agree with John in his prologue that Christ (Logos) is co-eternal with the Father. You have insinuated now three times that I do not believe Christ to be eternal. That is insulting because you are coming precariously close to charging me as a heretic.

It isn't about friends and enemies here. It is about you misrepresenting what I have said. If you wish to stop the debate with me that's fine. But to continually misrepresent what I've said while trying to belittle me by saying I'm emotionally tied to these debates is ludicrous.

And, you still haven't answered my question: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

You are arguing against things I never said. That has now become the issue. I've said now several times that I agree with John in his prologue that Christ (Logos) is co-eternal with the Father. You have insinuated now three times that I do not believe Christ to be eternal. That is insulting because you are coming precariously close to charging me as a heretic.

It isn't about friends and enemies here. It is about you misrepresenting what I have said. If you wish to stop the debate with me that's fine. But to continually misrepresent what I've said while trying to belittle me by saying I'm emotionally tied to these debates is ludicrous.

And, you still haven't answered my question: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?

The Archangel

This is what I meant by why I was trying to be careful so as not to upset you. I was not trying to belittle you, only noting that you have reported things you believe I implied over 15 times during the past few weeks. That is pretty excessive. I have no doubt you reported post you just quoted (because I see you did).

We have both charged the other with holding a view approaching at least one position that has been deemed heresy. But I have not taken offense or considered it an insult. This is the nature of argument - one side believes the other side incorrect. You, on the other hand, seem to view any fundamental disagreement as somehow an insult to your person. You don't need a debate board, you need an echo chamber.

I know that I am not always the most sensitive to members who are less objective in dialogue. I don't mean to hurt your feelings. I don't mean to make you go to the administration in the form of a report rather than dealing with me. I am retired military and sensitivity to feelings is not my strongest characteristic.

I believe that Peter did not die when he saw Christ's transfigured face because he was gazing upon Christ - God-man.

I also believe that Mary looked upon God as a baby and did not die. I am not sure but maybe this is an example of our differences. I believe that Jesus is God (as man and as God).

 

[The Archangel]

This is what I meant by why I was trying to be careful so as not to upset you. I was not trying to belittle you, only noting that you have reported things you believe I implied over 15 times during the past few weeks. That is pretty excessive. I have no doubt you reported post you just quoted (because I see you did

What is “upsetting” is that you insist other people not misrepresent your position ore statements, yet you seem to be completely at liberty to do so with others. I’m not “upset;” I’m merely calling you on the inconsistency.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

What is “upsetting” is that you insist other people not misrepresent your position ore statements, yet you seem to be completely at liberty to do so with others. I’m not “upset;” I’m merely calling you on the inconsistency.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The amount of times you sought help from the administration over the past few weeks seem to present a different story.

You have repeatedly told me what I believe. I have not told you what you believe. I've asked questions and stated my understanding of your belief, but I've never misrepresented your view. You simply have taken every thing I say as declaration. That is not my problem, it is yours.

I have not misrepresented your view. I stated mine. Deal with it, or don't.

I believe that the all the glory of God dwells in Christ bodily.
I believe that Christ is the Word become flesh.
I believe that no one knows God except through Christ.
I believe that Jesus is God's fullest revelation of Himself to mankind.

In the Old Testament I do believe that there are instances where God was present in all three Persons. I believe this is true at Christ's baptism as well (as I stated).

I believe that Jesus had one nature as defined in Hebrews 1, but two natures when defined as divinity and humanity. I believe these two natures are distinct and inseparable. So I reject the idea Jesus did things in one nature without the other. That speaks of "person" not "nature".

Deal with what I believe and end the childish ad hominem. Remember what Paul said - "when I became a man I put away childish things".

Or don't. It's up to you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think I see your confusion. You seem to think that I am speaking of God as tiring in a way that is not a human weariness. But that is not true. We all know that God is spirit. But I believe that God became a human being. I believe "the Word became flesh" is literal. I believe that God not only experienced physical weariness but that God also experienced a physical death (a human death).

Thank you for confirming your position. On that basis I think the thread should be closed forthwith.
.

 

[The Archangel]

The amount of times you sought help from the administration over the past few weeks seem to present a different story.

You have repeatedly told me what I believe. I have not told you what you believe. I've asked questions and stated my understanding of your belief, but I've never misrepresented your view. You simply have taken every thing I say as declaration. That is not my problem, it is yours.

This is quite humorous and blatantly false.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Thank you for confirming your position. On that basis I think the thread should be closed forthwith.
.

You are more than welcome. I only wish that we could examine our views in a more mature manner (both you and I).

We have our differences (strong differences). I appreciate that we were able to discuss these things as men. Sometimes members are tempted to cry to the "teacher" at every turn. Whether good or bad, we at least disagreed "face to face".

We will never disagree on these theological point, but I do see you a brother in Christ. When we speak of Christ's dual nature (man and God) we cannot but run into barriers as we cannot know all there is to know about God.

I hope you and your family have a wonderful New Year.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7:15 AM Pacific.