The Pre-incarnate Christ

[Yeshua1]

How can the symbol of Chalcedon be heresy? It defines heresy. Have you read it?

Bible teaches us that Jesus us fully God and man!

 

[JonC]

One person, with 2 natures!

That is what the creeds teach as well (I am not sure @1689Dave understands what he has read in the creeds so I provided a section).

We have the problem that "nature" is not always adequately defined, but orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is fully God and fully man (not God plus some humanity or man plus some divinity).

 

[1689Dave]

We agree as He being one person, He in His Incarnation He has two natures human and being God. What we may disagree on, since it is missing in the irregular church creeds, as the Logos being the Son He always had two natures prior to Him changing one of His natures to become a man. How He was always "with" the God changed, John 1:2, John 1:14, to be "made flesh." He did not change His nature being God. But He changed! Malachi 3:6.

What you are missing is the sum total of Christ. In Christ, the man, dwelt the trinity who spoke through the second person the eternal Son. He did not have a human person which is Nestorianism, condemned as heresy a couple of times and is popular today in several cults.

The trinity does not change but took on sinless human nature in his virgin birth. That is, the Trinity did not die on the cross, only the sacrificial body died and returned to life for the redemption of the elect.

 

[1689Dave]

That is what the creeds teach as well (I am not sure @1689Dave understands what he has read in the creeds so I provided a section).

We have the problem that "nature" is not always adequately defined, but orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is fully God and fully man (not God plus some humanity or man plus some divinity).

Stick with the creeds and their definitions and it will be OK.

 

[1689Dave]

That is what the creeds teach as well (I am not sure @1689Dave understands what he has read in the creeds so I provided a section).

We have the problem that "nature" is not always adequately defined, but orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is fully God and fully man (not God plus some humanity or man plus some divinity).

Does the symbol of Chalcedon have this problem? That's my statement on it.

 

[1689Dave]

Bible teaches us that Jesus us fully God and man!

= Nestorianism = heresy = position of several cults today.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus is both God and Man!

Not as you define it.

 

[1689Dave]

2 natures in one person, fully God and fully man, do you refuse your own Creeds now?

Full human nature, full divine nature. Not two persons. One person God.

 

[1689Dave]

Are you unable to answer the question or are you unwilling?

I was not elevating that creed (the Athanasian Creed) to the level of Scripture by any means, but with any board we have certain presuppositions that are shared among members. Aspects of the doctrine of the trinity can be debates (what constitutes "person", "nature", etc.) but this board presupposes the doctrine of the Trinity.

I again ask you, is Christ "Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood"? Is Christ, as orthodox Christianity insists, fully God and fully man?

If you stick to the Symbol of Chalcedon and avoid Nestorianism, yes.

 

[1689Dave]

Never thought any such thing. The Son of God is one Person and has always been one Person.. His divine nature never changed. But how He was "with" the God, John 1:2 did change, John 1:14, to be "made flesh."

But you need to define this by the symbol of Chalcedon and pull back from Nestorianism.

 

[1689Dave]

He has always been one person the Son of God being the Word/Logos being always "with" the God, John 1:2 and always "was God," John 1:1.

Stick with the Symbol of Chalcedon for the precision of the doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

What you are missing is the sum total of Christ. In Christ, the man, dwelt the trinity who spoke through the second person the eternal Son. He did not have a human person which is Nestorianism, condemned as heresy a couple of times and is popular today in several cults.

The trinity does not change but took on sinless human nature in his virgin birth. That is, the Trinity did not die on the cross, only the sacrificial body died and returned to life for the redemption of the elect.

Are you holding to a Jesus only model here then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Stick with the Symbol of Chalcedon for the precision of the doctrine.

I much prefer to stick with what the Bible states on Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

But you need to define this by the symbol of Chalcedon and pull back from Nestorianism.

Define Jesus by scripture!

 

[Yeshua1]

Full human nature, full divine nature. Not two persons. One person God.

Is He forever the God man?

 

[1689Dave]

Are you holding to a Jesus only model here then?

Jesus Christ is the NT name for the Trinity.
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 (NCPB)

 

[1689Dave]

Define Jesus by scripture!

The most accurate definition I've found is in the Symbol of Chalcedon already provided.

 

[1689Dave]

Is He forever the God man?

Is the trinity?

 

[JonC]

Does the symbol of Chalcedon have this problem? That's my statement on it.

Each creed builds on the previous (that is the nature of theology). The creeds were developed to address strong errors at that time. The end result in terms of orthodoxy is that Christ is fully man and fully God.

What the creeds denounced was the idea that Christ was God appearing human, human but not fully God, God but not fully man, ect.

My question is do you agree with the creeds OR do you reject that Christ us fully man and fully God.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that you hold the orthodox view but then you appear to say Jesus was not fully human (a denial of the orthodox position).

I am simply asking if you believe Christ is fully man and fully God. Let your answer be yes or no (it is a yes or no question). No need to hide.

It seems you may have answered with Y1, but I am not sure.

 

[1689Dave]

Each creed builds on the previous (that is the nature of theology). The creeds were developed to address strong errors at that time. The end result in terms of orthodoxy is that Christ is fully man and fully God.

What the creeds denounced was the idea that Christ was God appearing human, human but not fully God, God but not fully man, ect.

My question is do you agree with the creeds OR do you reject that Christ us fully man and fully God.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that you hold the orthodox view but then you appear to say Jesus was not fully human (a denial of the orthodox position).

I am simply asking if you believe Christ is fully man and fully God. Let your answer be yes or no (it is a yes or no question). No need to hide.

It seems you may have answered with Y1, but I am not sure.

So are the ecumenical creeds true? Chalcedon says Christ is God in one person with two natures. One fully human and one fully divine. I can't imagine how you and others would find this so challenging. So taxing to run into a discussion of this length.