My position on the Trinity

He has declared on another forum that those who affirm the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian creed by claiming Christ is completely God and completely man are guilty of Nestorianism.

The statement he decried as heresy is "Christ is one person, two natures (indivisible yet without mixture), completely God, completely human".

His charge was that this is attacking the Chalcedonian Creed and Nestorianism because saying Christ is "completely God, completely human" is the same as saying Christ is two persons.

He offered an illustration that our finger is "completely human", Christ had a human body and soul but not a human spirit.

His view is called Apollinarianism and was deemed heretical in 381.

He wants to make sure his rejection of orthodox doctrine here is not a cause to be banned. My opinion is we have to allow some room because this is a difficult doctrine to articulate and an impossible one to fully understand.

Not all have studied theogy at a graduate level and many may not be familiar with Apollinarianism or the distinction of bipartite vs tripartite when it comes to Christian anthropology.

The question is whether or not Apollinarianism is considered a "strong heresy" by the Administration. I do not think so but I am not the deciding factor.

 

@1689Dave,

Thank you for explaining your view.

Do you also believe that Christ is completely God, completely man?

I ask because the orthodox position (from the Athanasian Creed) uses the words "completely God, completely human". This is the creed Calvinism used to articulate the Trinity in the Belgic Confession and was instrumental at the Synod of Dort.

That is the main concern some had with your view. You appeared to link the Athanasian Creed ("completely God, completely human") with Nestorianism rather than orthodoxy.

 

@1689Dave,

Many believe that man is comprised of two parts - a body and a soul/spirit/ non-physical part. Mists Calvinists I have encountered hold this position. R. C. Sproul wrote a good defence for the view.

I personally see the Spirit as different from the soul. But I am not a Calvinist.

Regardless, orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is "completely God, completely human" to include all there is of man (whether two or three "parts").

The belief Christ had a human body, human soul, but not a human mind/ spirit is called Apollinarianism and was declared a heresy in 381 as it presented Christ as fully God but not fully man.

I am not debating the accuracy of your view. Like I said, orthodoxy is a presupposition.

I am just pointing out the fact that you hold to a view that was declared a heresy in 381 and is outside of orthodox belief.

I would caution you, however, not to defend your view here. The orthodox position (an agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds) is assumed on this board. I believe your belief, while technically in violation of BB standards, can be overlooked but it cannot be advocated or defended on the forum.

 

I never harped on the deficiency of the creeds (I actually stated the opposite - I said that while I am not "creedal" I believe the creeds do an excellent job of explaining this doctrine).

I also never said that I am a Dichotomist. I have repeatedly said that I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit (I believe the "spirit" is different from the "soul").

Let me ask you this-

Why is it I quote an Ecumenical creeds and say I believe it does a very good job at presenting the doctrine of the trinity and YOU declare that I am denying the creed and claiming Christ is two persons when I never even hinted at such things?

Why is it you claim I deny Scripture by stating man is only body and soul when my stated position is that I believe men are body, soul, and spirit?


Perhaps the reason is you study Scripture and the creeds as carelessly as you read my posts and the posts of others on this board.

To use YOUR standard - quote me "harping on the deficiency" of the creeds or be proven a liar.

Quote me denying man is "spirit and soul and body" or be proven a liar.