Hypostatic Union

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is, essentially, what has been decided to be correct, and it is usually applied to Christian doctrine. So, Nicea laid-out what was "Orthodox" as far as Jesus' divinity. He was "begotten, not made." This "orthodoxy" rendered the Arian position as "heresy." Heresy is that which is outside orthodoxy.

So, Chalcedonian Christology defined the "orthodox" position for Christendom. To hold a position contrary to the established orthodoxy is--by definition--"heresy."

Hmmm... The Chalcedonian Christology is not the "doctrines of men." The Chalcedonian discussion sought to bring scripture to bear on the question of how Jesus' humanity and divinity went together. So, the "source" is not the "creed" of Chalcedon, it is scripture. So, again, your lack of understanding is apparent.

The Archangel

 

Laughable nonsense.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The problem is that the creed is what everyone who believe in it cites, not the scripture. They neither know nor care what the argument that they used to establish the creed was. Thus, whether it was intended to be or not, it is, in fact, a doctrine of men.

 

Neither the Nicene creed nor Chalcedon creed are Scripture.

 

Nor are they even derived - in large measure - from scripture and to the extent that they are derived from scripture they are unnecessary precisely because we have scripture!

I have never understood why anyone cares at all about such creeds.