The creed is not the word of God. The Son of God and God being the One God, neither being caused in being the One God. The term "begotten" refers to a cause!
The Chalcedonian Creed: Fact, Fiction, or Something Between?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Dec 20, 2018.
Page 4 of 8
-
-
-
-
How then was Christ NOT born a sinner?
From Luke 1: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
It was not a lack of sin on Mary's part, but the direct purposed intervention of the work of the Father and Holy Spirit. -
The Chalcedonian Creed presents an unrealistic (unbiblical) approach to the crucifixion and tomb of Christ.
All humankind have an eternal soul.
The body dies, and the believers are immediately present with the Lord in the new body that John said from the old earthly body he had,
"2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."
Death brings a transition of form to believers, yet we know so very little other than such will take place.
But what of the death of Christ?
What can we see is found in Scriptures. The PHYSICAL body died, however He stated to the thief - "today you will be with me in Paradise." So, Christ did not cease, the body was sacrificed, and He preached and displayed Himself to the OT saints and spirits of the condemned.
Peter is perhaps the best resource on this matter for he wrote,
“Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”
The hypostatic union WAS broken upon the death of the physical body of Christ. The body lay in the tomb, Christ was NOT in the tomb, but other places preaching and on display.
The Chalcedonian Creed states:
"...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, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son,
This is just not the truth. Christ was gloried upon resurrection, the body changed.
The Chalcedonian Creed embarks upon a journey away from the clear teaching of Scriptures.
The BODY of Christ was a PHYSICAL body just as WE have a physical body. It was 100% physical. It was not in any manner special from our own bodies. Our physical body die, but the eternal soul lives on. Christ's body died, but His work was not done. He had more places to visit and preaching to be done while the body was taken off the cross, wrapped, and lay in the tomb. That is the teaching of Scriptures.
Just as God was intricately involved in the birth of Christ, so too was He involved in the resurrection.
Paul writes in Romans,
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you."The ESV translates it :
"Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,"
How often do preachers cling to a creed that presents a failed presentation of Scriptures!
How often have we all said, "Christ died" thinking that it was the very God and not the PHYSICAL vessel of Christ that died. That vessel that (as the atonement lamb) took upon Himself the sins of all the "Kosmos (Cosmos)."
God cannot die, The Christ cannot die, but the body that housed the God-man certainly could.
The Hypostatic union was broken from the point, "Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit."
The creed is wrong, too wrong to be of true value to those of us who cling to Scriptures as our final authority. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I shall be spending much less time on this board for the foreseeable future. I have additional responsibility in my church and with Gideons UK. I have also not contributed to my blog for nine months and intend to amend that. I have also let my studies into the Lollards and 15th Century Christianity in Britain lapse and need to re-start it. I usually enjoy discussions on this board, but it's a great time-waster. However, I'm sure I shall be about from time to time. -
I am not saying anyone is going into hypothetical philosophy. I am simply stating the fact that statements such as "Jesus is man as if he were not God" is a hypothetical, philosophical statement. The fact is Jesus is both man and God.
It is for that reason I believe it best to discuss these elements of Christ by seeking out Scripture. It is far too easily to get so jumbled up in philosophical ideas about God one misses what He actually reveals of Himself in Scripture.
Does Scripture say that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ?
Does Scripture say that Jesus is man as if he were not God?
Each of us has to go to God's Word, search out Scripture, and see for himself. Our faith is not the responsibility of another, whether another creed, confession, or man.
Blessings,
John -
-
But, if you consider it more to the point of this thread you may do with it as you wish, copy or remove it from one and post in the other. -
I don't know why it's post # 67, but it is here. The post is relevant to this discussion and rather than bouncing between threads I believe it makes more sense to have it visible here.
-
-
One is in dealing with two natures. The author of Hebrews speaks of one nature in Christ, and that is the exact representation of God’s glory. But this is in context of Christ making purification of sins.
I can deal with this difference because I can understand “nature” in the creed to simply be trying to say Jesus was both God and man (to guard against heresy). But the language may not be so easily to justify through Scripture.
But this does become inconsistent when we consider the resurrection. Jesus is still God-man but with a resurrected body. So if we are speaking of nature as associated with the body then the Creed is wrong. If we are speaking of nature associated with human desires the Creed is wrong. And if we are speaking of nature more along the line of Scripture then the Creed again is wrong as Scripture presents that exact representation of God’s nature onto Christ bodily and only speaks of it singularly.
That said, it is a philosophical Creed. It tried to remove what was unbiblical about other stands and form boundaries to dealing with Christ’s nature relevant to its day. It is by no means perfect.
I still think the Creed reflects my beliefs (as long as I'm defining the terms) because I describe it simply as Jesus being no less God than God and no more man than man (which did not originate with the creed). -
By my continued endorsement of the creed, I am leading the unaware and uninformed into a false system of thought and teaching.
Therefore, I can no longer be supportive of the creed, and although can agree in the narrow focus of presenting The Christ was not two separated individuals residing in a single life form, the creed is just too far from being Scripturally supportable in total.
One should not have to manipulate terms, and bring definitions to the table when ask to feast in agreement over this document. -
I have to consider how it is interpreted when re-contextualized in contemporary thought. It is used to justify the idea of two persons (just substituting the word "nature").
My reasoning is a bit different. I do not believe the hypostatic union was broken but instead that Jesus experienced the grave as we will, and a resurrected body as we will.
So I believe that Jesus as God-man died and as God-man sits at God's right hand. My issue with the Creed is so many seem to read this as God+man and affirming the Creed actually hold a heresy it was designed to prevent. -
Another concern is some seem to me to be more concerned with defending their theologies than they are with examining them.
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
I'm curious as to how you formulate Abraham knowing God (Yahweh) through Christ.
The Archangel -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. When the Lord Jesus came on board the boat, He was tired and weary so He went to sleep (Mark 4:35ff).
2. God does not get tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28)
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is man as if He were not God.
Then
1. The Lord Jesus stilled the storm with a word. (Mark 4:39).
2. A man cannot still the storm with a word. Try it and let me know how you get on.
3. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God as if He were not man.
FWIW, As I pointed out before, this is entirely in line with the Chalcedon Creed. -
Again, this boils down to some people still equating GOD with MAN. What's impossible for man is easy for GOD. jesus was God's son, and also Himself God before He became a man. I don't know by what mechanism He temporarily laid aside His glory & was placed into a human zygote. I only know IT HAPPENED, & that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. That seemstabee a catchall phrase, but in mentioning GOD, it's entirely-TRUE.
While no man can explain HOW, the FACT remains that Jesus was fully man & fully God at the same time. He did almost everything any other man does, except sin, but He also did miraculous things no man can do. He accepted worship, something no angel would do. He didn't argue when someone called Him God, but He told them not to tell anyone else. But he hungered, he thirsted, He grew weary, He slept, etc. But at His "passion", He took enough physical abuse to have killed an ordinary man several times over, but he didn't die til He accomplished everything He'd come to do, & he yielded up His Spirit at the time of HIS choosing.
Yes, He did most things ordinary for a man, but also many things unique to God, while in the same body. So He was both fully man & fully God at the same time. -
When the Lord (Jehovah) appears to Abraham in Genesis 18 I believe this is God. But I believe this is the Second Person of the Trinity.
I believe it wrong to say "the Father appeared to Abraham" or "the Godhead appeared to Abraham". But I believe it correct that Jehovah appeared to him. And I am comfortable with the Word or Logos appeard to him.
The same is true of Moses. I believe the Logos was in the bush that was burning without being consumed.
I think this relationship between the Persons of the Trinity existed eternally. When we see God working in the Old Testament I believe this is God working in the Person of the Logos. When God created the Earth I believe this as both through and for the Logos.
I hope this helps understand why I believe man can only know God through Christ. When Jesus says he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life I believe this is literal. Not the "way" to Heaven but the Way to God. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God has explained Him. The Only man who has ever seen the Father is Jesus.
We know that God appeared to Abraham because Genesis 18 states that He did. If you do not believe that this was the Logos (the second Person of the Trinity) then exactly what Person of the Trinity do you believe Abraham beheld?
Page 4 of 8