The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

You said:

in response to JonC.

I got muddled up in the conversation.

Perhaps if I re-present, you can sharpen the awareness of how we might not agree. For much of what you have written and JonC has written is agreeable.

Would you agree that the incarnation of Christ being fully God in a fully human body is neither modern thinking Chalcedonian nor Nestorian, but is indeed that which the Scriptures present?

Presented in such passages as John 1, Hebrews 10, Luke 1 in which the body was most certainly completely human with the basic needs required to remain healthy, yet it clothed the fullness of God?

Of course you do, and so (from what I have read) does JonC.

It would follow then that definitions are problematic.

Prior to Chalcedonian presentation, the thinking was that a complete physical body was united with God.

Because our own defining of “nature” is not confined to what is “seen” and “handled” (1 John) but includes the intangibles of personality, intellectual capacity, ... the Chalcedonian in modern times is taken beyond the framework of the authors’ thinking.

Because the defining of two completely separate individualistic natures (Nestorian) is certainly unbiblical, yet more often presented by some who suggest the human expressions of sorrow, will, distress, avoidance, ... show Christ having human intangibles, the disregard is not complete - not even on the BB.

Christ came, born of 100% human with all that the body requires for sustaining. Just as Adam also had a body requiring sustaining.

What Christ did not have was the “fallen” human nature, but was the “Holy One (child)” from conception (Luke 1). Christ is 100% God (eternal) with all the intellect, will, personality, temperament, desire expressions,... of God.

As God breathed into Adam the eternal, Christ was not “breathed” into Mary, but “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

Not Nestorian or modern thinking Chalcedonian.

But that which is Scripture based.

Some on the board would attempt to show the Lord Jesus Christ as having two intellects, two wills, two desires, two personalities, ...

He was not of that frame.

 

Because it's not true!

Jesus did NOT go to hell; He went to PARADISE, as He Himself said He'd do. He told the repentant thief on the cross, "Today, you shall be with me IN PARADISE."

 

Again, you're intentionally misrepresenting my stated position--which is insulting. The context of the initial disagreement was about you giving a scriptural argument as to why the Chalcedonian formula was wrong. NOTICE: I was not saying everyone had to disprove a creed; I was saying you had to disprove the creed because you were the one challenging it. The "You" I have been using is singular, not plural. To make it even more simple: JonC as the one challenging the Chalcedonian formula must say why Chalcedon is wrong. To insist the orthodox, majority view must be proven is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply would not engage you in support of that fallacy. This is what I have been saying.

To make it even more abundantly clear:

• Creeds point us to scripture
• Creeds are only correct insofaras they rightly reflect scripture
• Creeds do not have to be disproven before they are rejected
• JonC--as the one challenging Chalcedon--had to state his argument from scripture before I would engage (so as to avoid participation in a logical fallacy).

Now, the citation of the BF&M is entirely different from the citation of Chalcedon. The BF&M is not Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian formula of one person/two natures has been the orthodox definition of Christology for 1500 years, the BF&M has not. The BF&M does not define "orthodoxy;" it is a statement of agreed-upon beliefs. In that way, London 1689 is the same type of confession used by Baptists, not all Christendom. Chalcedon, on the other hand, is agreed upon by the vast majority of Christians--and has been for a millennium-and-a-half--and it is the definition of orthodox Christology. So, there is a fundamental difference between Chalcedon and the BF&M.

Now, JonC, as one who has stated that you are greatly insulted by others who misrepresent your position, why do you continually misrepresent mine?

The Archangel

 

That's not at all what I have been saying--and you know it. You know I have posted that your asking for me to prove Chalcedon before you disprove it is a logical fallacy. I have posted that; you have seemingly ignored it. You know I have posted that creeds point us to scripture, but have taken my words out of context.

The Archangel

 

Strawman; Red Herring.

I have told you already, but you are ignoring what I have said.

The Archangel

 

From Post #27

How can a supposed conservative Christian Theologian/Teacher make such outlandish, unfounded statements and come to such baseless decisions as Sproul Sr.? Has anyone of any Christian renown challenged this nonsense?

(Or, if I am missing something, I expect to be gently reprimanded.)

 

I know of no Baptist though who would say that the Creeds/Confessions are equal to the scriptures...

 

The basic problem is with the word hell, as its actually Hades in the Greek text....

 

No, more the logic that since Jesus died as our sin bearer and received the punishment and wrath of God due us, he would experience what loss sinners do, separation from presence of God while hanging on that cross!

 

The very same would have to also apply towards the PST viewpoint that he no longer affirms, as since that is the classic reformed/Baptist held position regarding the Atonement, needs to show why it is wrong now to hold to it anymore.

 

The very same would have to also apply towards the PST viewpoint that he no longers affirms, as since that is the classic reformed/Baptist held position regarding the Atonement, needs to show why it is wrong now to hold to it an

Are you saying here then that those of us who like to use a Confession, or hold to differing viewpoint are not using the scriptures?