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

[JonC]

You were claiming that ALL of the fullness of God was in Jesus, and that when we saw Him we saw the Father, correct?

No. I quoted Paul - "all the fullness of God dwells in Him bodily" and the author of Hebrews that He "is the exact representation of His [God's] nature", and Jesus "I and my Father are One.".

I should have clarified those were passages rather than my own words. Sorry.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But you have not proven anything. You provided Scripture and then stated an opinion which stood in contradiction with the Chalcedon Creed (Jesus as God did not tire is only one example of a rejection of the creed at least in part).

I am not disagreeing with Chalcedon as you know perfectly well.

3. However we all know that Isaiah is speaking of God as spirit.
4. But the Logos became flesh, so God could tire physically (in a body)

You are contradicting the Scripture, denying the very nature of God and upholding a form of Sabellianism.

 

[JonC]

I am not disagreeing with Chalcedon as you know perfectly well.

I understand you mean well, and are just trying to argue your position. But please be careful with the assumptions and suggestions. I am not lying. I do not “know perfectly well” that you are not disagreeing with Chalcedon and in fact I believe that is EXACTLY what you are doing.:

I believe your view of “nature” does not seem consistent with the Chalcedonian formula. I believe it is a result of postmodernism (which has a tendency to reach back to antiquity, decontextualize ideas only to reinvent them as their own). What I believe you may hold to is not the Chalcedonian Creed but a neo-Calcedonian Creed because your view appears to deny the original by redefining terms.

What I believe you affirm in this neo-Calcedonian view, that Jesus was “God as if he were not man” and “man as if he were not God” is a separation that the Creed sought earnestly to guard against.

You are contradicting the Scripture, denying the very nature of God and upholding a form of Sabellianism.

Given your misunderstanding in the previous statement (that I was saying one thing while in fact aware of the opposite), I do not doubt you really believe my view that Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man to be Sabellianism.

Here is where you are wrong – I do believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity. You never bothered to consider how I believed that but instead jumped onto my comment that “all the fulness of God dwells in Christ bodily”. Thay may be your denial of my position but that is not the main part where we differ.

Where I mostly object to your view (and where you fail the Calcedonian standard as I understand the Creed) is that you seem to replace God-man with God + man. You seem to present Jesus as God speaking to the seas to be calm (ignoring, of course, He was in a physical body on a boat using that physical body to utter the words to calm the sea).

So it seems (to me) that you are suggesting Jesus was man as if he were not God and He was God ss if He were not man.

Here is exactly where I stand – If anyone says that Jesus was man is if He were not God then that person has committed heresy. If anyone says that Jesus was God as if He were not man then that person has committed heresy. We can NEVER belittle Christ in order to support our theories or theologies.

Jesus is God and Jesus is man. There is nothing to be taken away from that statement. God-man. As the Creed states – inseparable. Period.

 

[The Archangel]

Thank you. I wish I could take credit for the belief but it was at one time considered the only Christian view. I appreciate your request for Scripture.

I base my concept that Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation on John 1 (I believe the Logos of John 1 is Christ).

I base my belief that it is through Christ that all things were created and are sustained on Colossians 1:16.

I establish my belief that God appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre on Genesis 18.

I base the idea that no man has seen God at any time except as declared by the Son on John 1:18.

I know it is a hard teaching, even for believers. It was so difficult as to be a barrier for the Jews of John 8:48-59 when Jesus actually claimed that Identity for Himself. But I do believe that there is a commonality between the Old and New Testament. I believe this is Christ. And I believe we see the exact same God in both testaments.

There are other areas of Scripture we could explore (that God is immutable; Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; the forefathers trusting in the Promise yet revealed, etc.).

Do you have any verses that show that the God who appeared to Abraham was the Father (or the Spirit, or the Godhead)? If so, how do you reconcile it with New Testament passages that state no one has seen God except as declared by the Son?

Well.......

Your search for "verses" from me is a bit odd considering the verses you provide require your own self-drawn conclusions about their meaning in order for your argument to be correct. In other words, merely citing the verses is a little close to a begging of the question. John, for example, in His prologue is likely not meaning to convey what you say he is meaning.

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?

While there are episodes in the Old Testament that would more readily lend themselves more to a theophany including the pre-incarnante Christ, it would seem there is some difference between the Old Testament appearances and not every appearance of God should be considered the son.

The Archangel

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand you mean well, and are just trying to argue your position. But please be careful with the assumptions and suggestions. I am not lying. I do not “know perfectly well” that you are not disagreeing with Chalcedon and in fact I believe that is EXACTLY what you are doing.:

I believe your view of “nature” does not seem consistent with the Chalcedonian formula. I believe it is a result of postmodernism (which has a tendency to reach back to antiquity, decontextualize ideas only to reinvent them as their own). What I believe you may hold to is not the Chalcedonian Creed but a neo-Calcedonian Creed because your view appears to deny the original by redefining terms.

What I believe you affirm in this neo-Calcedonian view, that Jesus was “God as if he were not man” and “man as if he were not God” is a separation that the Creed sought earnestly to guard against.

I note that you are unable to quote from the Creed to substantiate your false allegation. You know what you are saying is not true, so please stop doing it. Here is an extract from the Creed again:
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. The distinction of the natures is by no means taken away by the union. Christ is God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God, the property of each nature being preserved.

Given your misunderstanding in the previous statement (that I was saying one thing while in fact aware of the opposite), I do not doubt you really believe my view that Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man to be Sabellianism.

Here is where you are wrong – I do believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity. You never bothered to consider how I believed that but instead jumped onto my comment that “all the fulness of God dwells in Christ bodily”. That may be your denial of my position but that is not the main part where we differ.

That all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily is not the difference between us. I have made this clear so often that you can only be maintaining it as a deliberate terminological inexactitude.

Where I mostly object to your view (and where you fail the Calcedonian standard as I understand the Creed) is that you seem to replace God-man with God + man. You seem to present Jesus as God speaking to the seas to be calm (ignoring, of course, He was in a physical body on a boat using that physical body to utter the words to calm the sea).

Of course Jesus speaks to the sea as God. He is God. God in all His fullness; God as if He were not man.

So it seems (to me) that you are suggesting Jesus was man as if he were not God and He was God as if He were not man.

Here is exactly where I stand – If anyone says that Jesus was man is if He were not God then that person has committed heresy. If anyone says that Jesus was God as if He were not man then that person has committed heresy. We can NEVER belittle Christ in order to support our theories or theologies.

Jesus is God and Jesus is man. There is nothing to be taken away from that statement. God-man. As the Creed states – inseparable. Period.

That Jesus is God and Jesus is man-- that He is the God-man-- is not the issue between us. Nor is the fact that the natures are inseparable. Christ is not two Persons as per Nestorius. But the natures are also distinct and the properties of each unconfused.
This is what you wrote in your post #81.

3. However we all know that Isaiah is speaking of God as spirit.
4. But the Logos became flesh, so God could tire physically (in a body)

So the Holy Spirit, speaking through Isaiah 40:28 says that God cannot tire, but @JonC says He can. That is a denial of the Scriptures.
Sabellianism or Modalism is the failure to hold that the three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their personal properties. By failing to understand that Christ as man could tire, that He could be tempted and that He could die, none of which are things that God can do (Isaiah 4-:28; James 1:13), you are presenting Christ as God in 'Christ-mode,' in which God does all these things which the Scriptures say He cannot do. Therefore, ipso facto, you present yourself as a modalist.

I am sorry to be so disagreeable so near to Christmas. To avoid any further unpleasantness, I shall make no further posts until after Dec 25th.

 

[JonC]

Well.......

Your search for "verses" from me is a bit odd considering the verses you provide require your own self-drawn conclusions about their meaning in order for your argument to be correct. In other words, merely citing the verses is a little close to a begging of the question. John, for example, in His prologue is likely not meaning to convey what you say he is meaning.

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?

While there are episodes in the Old Testament that would more readily lend themselves more to a theophany including the pre-incarnante Christ, it would seem there is some difference between the Old Testament appearances and not every appearance of God should be considered the son.

The Archangel

I believe that no one can see God and live - and no one has seen God - except as revealed in Christ.

That does not mean there are no other Persons of the Trinity. It does not mean the other Persons do not act (they are not benign when it comes to man). When Jesus was baptized the Father spoke and the Spirit descended upon Him. God is One in three persons.

Moses could not see the glory of God and live. The bearers of the Arc could not touch it and live. God is transcendent. But in Christ He is God with us.

But how can you reconcile that no one can see God and live with the fact Jehovah appeared to Abraham?

Do you believe God changed how He operates when it comes to the New Testament (i.e , the Father is silent to men except through Christ in the NT only, but the reverse is true in the OT)?

 

[JonC]

I note that you are unable to quote from the Creed to substantiate your false allegation. You know what you are saying is not true, so please stop doing it. Here is an extract from the Creed again:

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. The distinction of the natures is by no means taken away by the union. Christ is God as if He were not man, and man as if He were not God, the property of each nature being preserved.

Again, Martin, I am gong to have to ask you so please stop implying that I am lying. I really did mean what I stated (my comments are not yours to interpret, they are mine to clarify which I did).

I believe the theory that Jesus was God as if God alone and man as if man alone is one heresy that the Fourth Ecumenical Council sought to address by insisting that these natures are unconfused, unchangeable, indivisible and inseparable.

I believe the belief that Jesus can be observed acting as God as if not man and man as if not God is Nestorianism. Nestorius denied that Mary the title Theotokus (“God-bearer”) favoring that she only bore Christ’s human nature (the argument being she bore Christ – his human nature – because God is eternal and spirit).

I believe the position you have claimed through your posts may be Nestorianism beneath the surface of the Creed (which is why I believe your statements may indicate an affirmation of neo-orthodoxy when it comes to the traditional view).

Here is an example of your expressions I find both unbiblical and in contrast to the Creed.

Of course Jesus speaks to the sea as God. He is God. God in all His fullness; God as if He were not man.

I have provided both Scripture and quotes from the Creed in arguing against this way of expressing the Son, so I will not repeat them here except to say your expression above does not acknowledge Christ in two natures ”inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably”. Your view as expressed seems very much to deny at least the nature of Christ as expressed in the Creed (and Scripture).

Jesus calmed the sea as if He were God-man because He was God Incarnate. We cannot separate the natures of Christ in his activities on earth or now at the right hand of the Father.

I am sorry to be so disagreeable so near to Christmas. To avoid any further unpleasantness, I shall make no further posts until after Dec 25th.

I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have not assigned to your words an attitude of unpleasantness but am just interacting with the statements. I’ve learned long ago not to try to read intent or emotion in posts. Nine times out of ten they end up being false assumptions. No apology needed. I’m sorry you can’t interact without it becoming disagreeable to you.

I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas. We picked up my mother yesterday, so we are getting ready for a nice, quiet Christmas at home.

 

[JonC]

@The Archangel ,

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I am always interested in how other people interpret Scripture. But only saying that my interpretation is not the likely meaning is not helpful to me as, while it lets me know you believe I’ve erred, it does not provide me with what you believe to be the correct interpretation.

John, for example, in His prologue is likely not meaning to convey what you say he is meaning.

The only statement I claimed regarding John 1 is that the prologue teaches that “Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation”.

I believe that John was reaching back, in a way, to Genesis 1. “In the beginning was the Word”. I believe that this does mean that the Son is eternal. He was present in Creation and all things were made through Him (through the Word, pre-incarnate Christ). So I probably will not be swayed that John is most likely not claiming that Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation.

That said, why do you believe that John is not likely referring to Jesus existing prior to the Incarnation with his words “in the beginning was the Word”?

 

[37818]

Both are true. BUT what I am arguing against is considering the man Jesus AS IF HE WERE NOT GOD.

Are you claiming the verse you provided is doing this?

Yes only in that to be truly a man, in being man this is not God. The Person who is the man which is not God is also God, not the Father. That person. He is not 1/2 man and 1/2 God, rather fully man (which is not God) and fully God, as sole Creator (John 1:3; John 1:9-10; Hebrews 1:2-3; Colossians 1:16-17).

Jesus had this dichotomy in mind when He corrected the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-18). The rich young ruler saw Him as just the man.

 

[37818]

Neither of these prove that Jesus ever acted as if He were not God.

So God has a God then? ". . . my God, and your God.. . ." -- John 20:17.
He was truly a man too.

 

[JonC]

Yes only in that to be truly a man, in being man this is not God. The Person who is the man which is not God is also God, not the Father. That person. He is not 1/2 man and 1/2 God, rather fully man (which is not God) and fully God, as sole Creator (John 1:3; John 1:9-10; Hebrews 1:2-3; Colossians 1:16-17).

Jesus had this dichotomy in mind when He corrected the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-18). The rich young ruler saw Him as just the man.

The problem is that line of thinking tends towards "person" and not "nature". We see humanity (fully man") displayed and divinity (truly God) displayed. These natures are distinct. BUT they are never separated in Christ (Jesus is never acting as if he were not God; never acting as if he were not man).

That is the error. Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. God-man. At no time is He man as if not God. Never (not even on the cross....where perhaps the greatest reconciliation is observed).

 

[37818]

The problem is that line of thinking tends towards "person" and not "nature". We see humanity (fully man") displayed and divinity (truly God) displayed. These natures are distinct. BUT they are never separated in Christ (Jesus is never acting as if he were not God; never acting as if he were not man).

That is the error. Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. God-man. At no time is He man as if not God. Never (not even on the cross....where perhaps the greatest reconciliation is observed).

Him being man is made in distinction to His deity. 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 20:17 etc. Failure to recognized this distinction made between His full humanity from His full deity feeds the denial of His deity.

 

[JonC]

Him being man is made in distinction to His deity. 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 20:17 etc. Failure to recognized this distinction made between His full humanity from His full deity feeds the denial of His deity.

I think you may need to read my reply and the passages again.

Do you agree with the Creed that these natures are not mixed (a third type of hybrid nature) but also inseparable (not God and man but God-man)?

I am trying to see how you line up with the "orthodox" view.

 

[37818]

I think you may need to read my reply and the passages again.

Do you agree with the Creed that these natures are not mixed (a third type of hybrid nature) but also inseparable (not God and man but God-man)?

I am trying to see how you line up with the "orthodox" view.

The natures are not mixed. He is one Person who is both fully man and fully God. Tradition typically fails on two points. 1) That He was always both not God, being someone else "with God" and "was God" prior to the incarnation. 2) He was not caused, "begotten" to be the Son. He was always the uncaused Son of God (Hebrews 1:2-3; Hebrews 7:3).

 

[JonC]

The natures are not mixed. He is one Person who is both fully man and fully God. Tradition typically fails on two points. 1) That He was always both not God, being someone else "with God" and "was God" prior to the incarnation. 2) He was not caused, "begotten" to be the Son. He was always the uncaused Son of God (Hebrews 1:2-3; Hebrews 7:3).

So your vote is the Creed is somewhere between fact and fiction. I disagree. While the "natures" are not mixed (a hybrid third nature), traditionally the view that Christ "was always both not God, being someone else 'with God' and 'was God' prior to the incarnation" was condemned as heresy (just as it was at Chalcedon). That was one important aspect of the Creed - it established orthodoxy concerning how the natures of Christ are viewed.

Christ being God refers to His "person". In Christ we see both a human and divine nature. God of very God become flesh. No less God than God - no more man than man. But never man as if He were not God.

 

[37818]

So your vote is the Creed is somewhere between fact and fiction. I disagree. While the "natures" are not mixed (a hybrid third nature), traditionally the view that Christ "was always both not God, being someone else 'with God' and 'was God' prior to the incarnation" was condemned as heresy (just as it was at Chalcedon). That was one important aspect of the Creed - it established orthodoxy concerning how the natures of Christ are viewed.

There is no third nature. There was only "with God" and "was God" prior to the incarnation. Get it right.
"With God" John 1:1-2 is stated twice.
"With" someone is not being that someone, in this case "with God." Yet, He "was God." And being God is an immutability. The Son was both "with God" being the Son, and "was God" being God with His Father.

Christ being God refers to His "person"

Agreed. The preincarnate Son "was God." The preincarnate Son being "with God" speaks of His person not being God too.

In Christ we see both a human and divine nature. God of very God become flesh. No less God than God - no more man than man. But never man as if He were not God.

1 Corinthians 8:6 does not speak of Jesus as God. In 1 Timothy 2:5 does not speak of Jesus as God. In John 20:17 Jesus does not speak of himself as God.

 

[JonC]

There is no third nature. There was only "with God" and "was God" prior to the incarnation. Get it right.
"With God" John 1:1-2 is stated twice.
"With" someone is not being that someone, in this case "with God." Yet, He "was God." And being God is an immutability. The Son was both "with God" being the Son, and "was God" being God with His Father.

Agreed. The preincarnate Son "was God." The preincarnate Son being "with God" speaks of His person not being God too.



1 Corinthians 8:6 does not speak of Jesus as God. In 1 Timothy 2:5 does not speak of Jesus as God. In John 20:17 Jesus does not speak of himself as God.

Thank you for explaining your view.

From my understanding @Martin Marprelate holds Jesus to be man as if he was not God and God as if he were not man. Would your view fit in with his (what I consider a "neo-Chalcedonianism" as it holds these natures separate and distinct rather than inseparable)?

 

[37818]

Thank you for explaining your view.

From my understanding @Martin Marprelate holds Jesus to be man as if he was not God and God as if he were not man. Would your view fit in with his (what I consider a "neo-Chalcedonianism" as it holds these natures separate and distinct rather than inseparable)?

I would agree in the incarnation that the two natures are separate and distinct but I hold Him to be one person having His one will. What changed in the incarnation was He changed from not being human to being human, "made flesh." What did not change was that He being "with God" and "was God." How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" is immutable, and so never changed.

 

[The Archangel]

I believe that no one can see God and live - and no one has seen God - except as revealed in Christ.

That does not mean there are no other Persons of the Trinity. It does not mean the other Persons do not act (they are not benign when it comes to man). When Jesus was baptized the Father spoke and the Spirit descended upon Him. God is One in three persons.

The language here is problematic. Christ doesn't simply reveal God; He is God. Christ is not, however, the sum-total of God's self-revelation. If Christ is the sum-total of God's self-revelation, then we have a dichotomy between Jesus and Scripture, which cannot be.

God reveals Himself in the Old Testament--especially to Moses. It is hard to make the case that Moses is speaking with the Son (with the warning about seeing God's face) since Peter didn't die seeing Jesus' transfigured face.

Moses could not see the glory of God and live. The bearers of the Arc could not touch it and live. God is transcendent. But in Christ He is God with us.

But how can you reconcile that no one can see God and live with the fact Jehovah appeared to Abraham?

The issue isn't seeing God, per se. People did that as seen here:

[9] Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. [11] And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank. (Exodus 24:9–11 ESV)
​

The issue, of course, seems to be seeing God's face. Moses does see God's glory, the "afterglow," so to speak. It is of note that the only thing described by Moses is what was under God's feet, suggesting that they were face-down before Him.

"Seeing" God is clearly an allusion to seeing Him in His fullness.

Do you believe God changed how He operates when it comes to the New Testament (i.e , the Father is silent to men except through Christ in the NT only, but the reverse is true in the OT)?

This is a Red Herring, really. It avoids the question I asked earlier: 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?

What is more, the Father does speak audibly in both the Old and New Testaments. He speaks at the aforementioned baptism of Jesus and He spoke audibly to all Israel at Mt. Sinai. So, there's no change of operation.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

@The Archangel ,

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I am always interested in how other people interpret Scripture. But only saying that my interpretation is not the likely meaning is not helpful to me as, while it lets me know you believe I’ve erred, it does not provide me with what you believe to be the correct interpretation.

The only statement I claimed regarding John 1 is that the prologue teaches that “Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation”.

I believe that John was reaching back, in a way, to Genesis 1. “In the beginning was the Word”. I believe that this does mean that the Son is eternal. He was present in Creation and all things were made through Him (through the Word, pre-incarnate Christ). So I probably will not be swayed that John is most likely not claiming that Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation.

That said, why do you believe that John is not likely referring to Jesus existing prior to the Incarnation with his words “in the beginning was the Word”?

You are bordering on a shameful accusation here--that I am arguing Jesus did not exist before the incarnation. You know, I find it funny that you tell @Martin Marprelate not to "lie" about you, but you seem to feel all the freedom in the world to do so with me, but I digress.

The purpose of John's prologue is to demonstrate the eternality of the Son. But, that's not how you started your argument, is it? You cited John 1:18 to support the idea that the Son was the one Abraham, Moses, etc. saw in the Old Testament. It is outside the scope of John's argument to say which person of the Trinity was seen by Abraham. What is more, the usage of the word "seen" is interesting as it may refer to more than just beholding with they eyes.

As I stated earlier, there is some argument to be made that the Son is present at times in the Old Testament. But, it is quite a far stretch to say that every appearance of God in the Old Testament is the Son.

The Archangel