Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you view God as the sum of the Persons of the Trinity?No, just that there existed God outside of Jesus Himself, Persons called the Father and the Holy Spirit!
Jesus was and is one of the Godhead, but not all of the Godhead was in Him!
I agree. Jesus even said this to Peter.Yes, but unless the Holy Spirit enables a sinner to really know who this Jesus was and is of the Bible...
No, for each person is fully and equally God, I do not see Jesus as being all 3 Persons inside Himself!Do you view God as the sum of the Persons of the Trinity?
You deny that we are all born as sinners, and that Jesus would have been a sinner unless he had the Virgin Birth?
Well I'm afraid it is you who is going into philosophical hypotheticals. I have given you Scripture for my understanding and you have rejected it for your own philosophy. The Creed states: '....Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin.......to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union [emphasis mine] You are blurring the distinction between the two naturesThank you for the post. It is not so much I find your expression confusing as I find it disagreeable. But we do have to be careful because we are venturing into philosophical ideas (“persons”, “natures”, …. even “union”) that carry diverse understanding.
What I disagree on is seeing Christ as man is if he were not God and God as if he were not man. This, in my view (again, we are speaking a philosophical hypothetical and not Scripture with the addition of “if he were not”) separates the “natures” to a degree not warranted by the creed itself.
So do I, but........What I believe the actual Creed is stating is that in Jesus is all the fullness of God in bodily form. No less God than God and no more man than man. Very God of very God, yet man like us.
This is where you go wrong. We should see Christ as all the fullness of God, but we should also see Him as man. We should see His example of goodness, kindness and total obedience to the Father's will, and seek to follow it as well as we can (e.g. Philippians 2:5, 12; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:21-23). For whilst our Lord certainly says, "I and the Father are One," He also says, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). We cannot pick and choose our Scriptures; we must accept both texts and reconcile them, which is not hard to do, when we turn to Philippians 2. But the Lord Jesus was not only the fullness of God, He was also suffering Servant, and we must see Him in His perfect manhood as well as in the fullness of Deity, otherwise we are in danger of falling into a form of Modalism.So I do not agree with idea we should ever look at Christ as man as if he were not God, or as God as if he were not man. I believe this is contrary to Scripture (“I and my Father are One).
Good. Jesus is certainly the God-man, but 'the distinction of natures [is] by no means taken away by the union.'I believe Jesus is God-man. As God-man Jesus was obedient to the Father, healed the sick, and died for us that we might have life.
I have no particular desire to adhere to Chalcedon apart from its adherence to Scripture. That adherence is shown (contrary to your insistence elsewhere) by its being the basis for all the great Protestant confessions. I have shown you where you fall short in your Christology, and given you Scriptural evidence for it. I understand that you don't accept that evidence so there is little more I can do.I hope this helps to clarify my view and where I believe we differ. I simply do not believe you affirm the Chalcedonian Creed as a whole because I believe you reject what they present as “two natures” inseparably. Which is fine as I do not hold the Creed as an authority for the "orthodox" view. But I think that your idea is different from the belief the Creed expresses.
John
By your reply I think that you may have misunderstood my statement.Well I'm afraid it is you who is going into philosophical hypotheticals. I have given you Scripture for my understanding and you have rejected it for your own philosophy. The Creed states: '....Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin.......to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union [emphasis mine] You are blurring the distinction between the two natures
So do I, but........
This is where you go wrong. We should see Christ as all the fullness of God, but we should also see Him as man. We should see His example of goodness, kindness and total obedience to the Father's will, and seek to follow it as well as we can (e.g. Philippians 2:5, 12; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:21-23). For whilst our Lord certainly says, "I and the Father are One," He also says, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). We cannot pick and choose our Scriptures; we must accept both texts and reconcile them, which is not hard to do, when we turn to Philippians 2. But the Lord Jesus was not only the fullness of God, He was also suffering Servant, and we must see Him in His perfect manhood as well as in the fullness of Deity, otherwise we are in danger of falling into a form of Modalism.
Good. Jesus is certainly the God-man, but 'the distinction of natures [is] by no means taken away by the union.'
I have no particular desire to adhere to Chalcedon apart from its adherence to Scripture. That adherence is shown (contrary to your insistence elsewhere) by its being the basis for all the great Protestant confessions. I have shown you where you fall short in your Christology, and given you Scriptural evidence for it. I understand that you don't accept that evidence so there is little more I can do.
I shall be spending much less time on this board for the foreseeable future. I have additional responsibility in my church and with Gideons UK. I have also not contributed to my blog for nine months and intend to amend that. I have also let my studies into the Lollards and 15th Century Christianity in Britain lapse and need to re-start it. I usually enjoy discussions on this board, but it's a great time-waster. However, I'm sure I shall be about from time to time.
Do you mind if I provide that post here?I have come to the conclusion the Chalcedonian Creed is too far from the truth of Scriptures to be taken seriously as a factual presentation.
The threads have been examining the birth and life of Christ. But the Creed breaks down and shows the serious flaws of misinformation and agenda driven statements that are just not supported by the Scriptures.
I posted the evidence on another thread (The Two Natures of Christ, post #64)
in which some may desire to look at how the creed is shown as failing the test of Scripture.
I didn't want to break the rule that says something about not posting the same post in more than one thread.Do you mind if I provide that post here?
Thank you.I don't know why it's post # 67, but it is here. The post is relevant to this discussion and rather than bouncing between threads I believe it makes more sense to have it visible here.
I also have a few concerns with the creed.The Chalcedonian Creed presents an unrealistic (unbiblical) approach to the crucifixion and tomb of Christ.
All humankind have an eternal soul.
The body dies, and the believers are immediately present with the Lord in the new body that John said from the old earthly body he had,
"2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."
Death brings a transition of form to believers, yet we know so very little other than such will take place.
But what of the death of Christ?
What can we see is found in Scriptures. The PHYSICAL body died, however He stated to the thief - "today you will be with me in Paradise." So, Christ did not cease, the body was sacrificed, and He preached and displayed Himself to the OT saints and spirits of the condemned.
Peter is perhaps the best resource on this matter for he wrote,
“Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”
The hypostatic union WAS broken upon the death of the physical body of Christ. The body lay in the tomb, Christ was NOT in the tomb, but other places preaching and on display.
The Chalcedonian Creed states:
"...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,
This is just not the truth. Christ was gloried upon resurrection, the body changed.
The Chalcedonian Creed embarks upon a journey away from the clear teaching of Scriptures.
The BODY of Christ was a PHYSICAL body just as WE have a physical body. It was 100% physical. It was not in any manner special from our own bodies. Our physical body die, but the eternal soul lives on. Christ's body died, but His work was not done. He had more places to visit and preaching to be done while the body was taken off the cross, wrapped, and lay in the tomb. That is the teaching of Scriptures.
Just as God was intricately involved in the birth of Christ, so too was He involved in the resurrection.
Paul writes in Romans,
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you."The ESV translates it :
"Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,"
How often do preachers cling to a creed that presents a failed presentation of Scriptures!
How often have we all said, "Christ died" thinking that it was the very God and not the PHYSICAL vessel of Christ that died. That vessel that (as the atonement lamb) took upon Himself the sins of all the "Kosmos (Cosmos)."
God cannot die, The Christ cannot die, but the body that housed the God-man certainly could.
The Hypostatic union was broken from the point, "Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit."
The creed is wrong, too wrong to be of true value to those of us who cling to Scriptures as our final authority.
My problem is that the creed falls far short of presenting a consistency with the Scripture presentation.I also have a few concerns with the creed.
One is in dealing with two natures. The author of Hebrews speaks of one nature in Christ, and that is the exact representation of God’s glory. But this is in context of Christ making purification of sins.
I can deal with this difference because I can understand “nature” in the creed to simply be trying to say Jesus was both God and man (to guard against heresy). But the language may not be so easily to justify through Scripture.
But this does become inconsistent when we consider the resurrection. Jesus is still God-man but with a resurrected body. So if we are speaking of nature as associated with the body then the Creed is wrong. If we are speaking of nature associated with human desires the Creed is wrong. And if we are speaking of nature more along the line of Scripture then the Creed again is wrong as Scripture presents that exact representation of God’s nature onto Christ bodily and only speaks of it singularly.
That said, it is a philosophical Creed. It tried to remove what was unbiblical about other stands and form boundaries to dealing with Christ’s nature relevant to its day. It is by no means perfect.
I still think the Creed reflects my beliefs (as long as I'm defining the terms) because I describe it simply as Jesus being no less God than God and no more man than man (which did not originate with the creed).
I'm about there myself. These couple of threads have made me to really consider the creed more than I have before.My problem is that the creed falls far short of presenting a consistency with the Scripture presentation.
By my continued endorsement of the creed, I am leading the unaware and uninformed into a false system of thought and teaching.
Therefore, I can no longer be supportive of the creed, and although can agree in the narrow focus of presenting The Christ was not two separated individuals residing in a single life form, the creed is just too far from being Scripturally supportable in total.
One should not have to manipulate terms, and bring definitions to the table when ask to feast in agreement over this document.
I understand how you may think this.
I believe that Christ existed prior to the Incarnation (I know we both believe this). But where we may differ is I view Abraham as knowing God through Christ as well - pre-Incarnate as God's Word, or λόγος (Logos).
I believe that it is an error to read Scripture and believe the God of the Old Testament is anyone different from the God of the New Testament. And I believe it an error to believe the God of the New Testament is anyone different from the fullness of God revealed in Christ.
I have already provided Scripture:By your reply I think that you may have misunderstood my statement.
I am not saying anyone is going into hypothetical philosophy. I am simply stating the fact that statements such as "Jesus is man as if he were not God" is a hypothetical, philosophical statement. The fact is Jesus is both man and God.
It is for that reason I believe it best to discuss these elements of Christ by seeking out Scripture. It is far too easily to get so jumbled up in philosophical ideas about God one misses what He actually reveals of Himself in Scripture.
Does Scripture say that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ?
Does Scripture say that Jesus is man as if he were not God?
Each of us has to go to God's Word, search out Scripture, and see for himself. Our faith is not the responsibility of another, whether another creed, confession, or man.
Blessings,
John
I believe that where God and man intersect the Logos is there.There is no God of the Old Testament vs. the God of the New Testament. It is the same God. On this we agree, as well as on the pre-existence of Christ.
I'm curious as to how you formulate Abraham knowing God (Yahweh) through Christ.
The Archangel