- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
This has been quoted quite a bit so here is the definition.The Definition of the
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.Hi,
So looking at this premise
if Christ was begotten of God from before the ages
to the same extent as he is begotten of Mary,
then since Christ is separate from Mary
then
Christ too has been separate from God
since before the ages.So Tim2 and W, do you believe that Christ was begotten as a son of God in the beginning, as this definition suggests happened?
I'm staying clear of this one. History has written what a mess the council of Chalcedon made. It attempted to sweep-up after it's older sister, Nicea, but with no luck. Instead, this council added to the mess and created a few of it's own. Such fateful steps we took as Christians during these “creed” making years…… Jesus wouldnt' take a pen to sign his name to any of these creeds! In fact, I'm sure on that Day we will see fire in his eyes as he clears the Temple once more.
Nick, how come you're allowed to use logic but I can't? No fair.
No, Nick, I don't believe “Jesus was begotten as a son of God in the beginning,” I believe He is the only begotten Son of God, begotten before the ages.
It says the Christ is consubstantial with humanity, so He is exactly the same as, consubstantial with, Mary. He is also exactly the same as the Father. Now to the extent that manhood contains divisions from person to person, this is an imperfection in manhood, one that I would not dare to ascribe to the Godhead.
Hi Tim2,
So you are saying Christ never was born of Mary as a son but somehow is still one with her?
Scripture says he was born and laid in a manger.
Was this not similar in principle to the begettal of the Son in the beginning-two from one?
This is confusing.This is what it says so logic does not come into it.
“as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, “Hi ,
Tim2 fully embaces this definition. He believes the Word was a son begotten in the beginning. We will see no more of this “eternal begetting”, shared substance nonsense then.Nick,
It does not say “the Word was a son begotten in the beginning.” First of all, show some reverence and capitalize the Son of God. Second, we know from John 1:1 that the Word wasn't begotten in the beginning, He already was in the beginning! That's why the Definition of Chalcedon says, “begotten of the Father before the ages.” Before the ages means before time, outside of time, and therefore eternal.
And the Definition says He is “of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead.”
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ June 02 2007,04:43) Nick, It does not say “the Word was a son begotten in the beginning.” First of all, show some reverence and capitalize the Son of God. Second, we know from John 1:1 that the Word wasn't begotten in the beginning, He already was in the beginning! That's why the Definition of Chalcedon says, “begotten of the Father before the ages.” Before the ages means before time, outside of time, and therefore eternal.
And the Definition says He is “of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead.”
Tim
Let's see Word, Father, same substance. OK
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 31 2007,15:58) Hi Tim2,
So you are saying Christ never was born of Mary as a son but somehow is still one with her?
Scripture says he was born and laid in a manger.
Was this not similar in principle to the begettal of the Son in the beginning-two from one?
This is confusing.This is what it says so logic does not come into it.
“as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, “
Nick says:This is confusing. And, I agree. Also, the bible tells me about the author of confusion.
Quote (Tim2 @ June 03 2007,05:26) If Nick's post and my post are confusing, then ignore them, and just read the Definition itself.
Hi Tim2:I believe that Nick was referring to the the definition, but if not, I was.
Quote (Tim2 @ June 02 2007,04:43) Nick, It does not say “the Word was a son begotten in the beginning.” First of all, show some reverence and capitalize the Son of God. Second, we know from John 1:1 that the Word wasn't begotten in the beginning, He already was in the beginning! That's why the Definition of Chalcedon says, “begotten of the Father before the ages.” Before the ages means before time, outside of time, and therefore eternal.
And the Definition says He is “of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead.”
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Is Christ not a son of God? Yes and he is the monogenes Son of God. But Christ is not our God but is the man from heaven.Quote But Christ is not our God Well then you are not in the same church as Thomas. John 20:28. Until you repent of this, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts.
Hi Tim2,
Do we need to accept all the catholic dogmas before you will speak to us again or only this one?Wow. I'm certainly glad you brought this thread up again, Nick. Now maybe newcomers will see what will happen to them if they do NOT say they believe in the council of Chalcedon.
Watch out LM!
So far Nick has been cast to the outer circle with the right hand of fellowship denied him.
And worse yet, I have been cast out of the family all together.
Again, wow…..
Not3in1,
I guess you're ignoring me, as I am ignoring Nick? That's all I can figure from the fact that you don't respond to any of my posts reaching out to you. Fine, then just receive this last warning from someone who loves you and wants to see you come back to church and join the true family of God. Nick and t8 are not your friends, even if they've made you an associate member here. They are trying to kill you by deceiving you with damnable heresies. The people here are not the family of God. They are stubborn sinners who refuse to accept that Jesus is God and would rather burn for all eternity than worship Him. Every single one of them will burn in hell for all eternity if they do not repent of their blasphemies. The ecumenical creeds state the truth of Scripture. You and everyone else here have your own creeds too (credo means “I believe”), but they are lies. Repent of them and believe the truth: The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Do you define heresy
as not agreeing with you,
or your creeds
or your denominational teachings?
It should be according to the bible.
You are on your own.The emperor is absolutely stark naked.
The language of the council of Chalcedon has been translated over the years into other languages used by Christians, so that we find ourselves today speaking, at least in creeds, of the “one person in two natures” in Jesus Christ, without asking whether these words really translate what was in the minds of the council fathers. As a matter of fact, they probably do not, and the result has been that Christians often feel obligated to speak of Jesus in a language with is as alien to their world as it would have been to the world of the New Testament.
So it happens that some in practice abide in the dogmatic formulas of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon and they take these more seriously than the text of the NT itself, this is very harmful for the faith.
The question becomes, “Do you believe in the creeds?” Instead of, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ?”
Sigh….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
