Chalcedon had it wrong by maintaining that Christ had two natures. BUT he said he did his miracle by the Father dwelling in him. It was not his own power. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Right? All he said and did came from the Father. So where did the two natures idea come from? What was deity was his spiritual identity of the Logos. That Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit.
@@classicchristianliterature I believe I am - the Logos was made a man. But that does not mean Jesus was not deity. He just did not have the miraculous attributes of deity, but his identity stayed the same. The two natures concept is really a paradox where they say the natures were separate yet united. It really makes no sense and Scripture does not witness to this. Now in his exalted state he does have the attributes of deity, but it does not appear that way when he was here in the flesh.
@@Mike65809 my issue with Monophysitism and I think what the church was getting at in this creed, is that nature / substance and person / hypostasis are indispensable for this discussion. The unity of Christ is in His person. 2 natures (Divine and human) united in one person. If Monophysitism is correct, then there is a “third” thing. That is, if Jesus is a mixture of divine and human natures (one nature), He ceases to be either. He would be less than God because of a mixed nature with man and He would be different than man because mixed with God. The natures are preserved and in fact Jesus is both God and man.
@@classicchristianliterature Okay thanks for your reply. My understanding of Monophysitism is that there are two kinds, one Jesus was all God, the other is he was all man. I've never heard of the one you just mentioned. But that's fine. I think the two nature approach is not Biblical. Chalcedon acted like Jesus did his miracles by his own power, that is, by his divine substance. But John makes it clear he did his works by the Father in him. Not only this, but he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. So the Father worked in him by the HS. So he didn't have his own attributes of deity. He was deity in his identity, however. So the two natures approach only causes confusion and is not biblical. And I might add, it can only explain why Jesus didn't know the hour of his return in his human nature only, which is a Nestorian understanding. So he had a human nature, given the HS without measure, and was deity in his identity of the Logos. Now in his exalted state he has all attributes of deity again.
@@Mike65809 correct me if I’m wrong, but perhaps you are arguing for kenosis? Even so, it doesn’t solve the issue. You stated that now “in his exalted state he has all the attributes of deity”. The issue remains because Christ in His exalted state remains human. He arose from the dead and ascended to heaven in a human body. How does the problem remain? Omnipresence is an aspect of divinity - is the human body of Jesus everywhere in its fullness at all times? The reformed orthodox approach this issue by affirming Chalcedon and the “extra calvinisticum”.
Chalcedon had it wrong by maintaining that Christ had two natures. BUT he said he did his miracle by the Father dwelling in him. It was not his own power. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Right? All he said and did came from the Father. So where did the two natures idea come from? What was deity was his spiritual identity of the Logos. That Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit.
So you are a monophysite?
@@classicchristianliterature I believe I am - the Logos was made a man. But that does not mean Jesus was not deity. He just did not have the miraculous attributes of deity, but his identity stayed the same. The two natures concept is really a paradox where they say the natures were separate yet united. It really makes no sense and Scripture does not witness to this. Now in his exalted state he does have the attributes of deity, but it does not appear that way when he was here in the flesh.
@@Mike65809 my issue with Monophysitism and I think what the church was getting at in this creed, is that nature / substance and person / hypostasis are indispensable for this discussion.
The unity of Christ is in His person. 2 natures (Divine and human) united in one person. If Monophysitism is correct, then there is a “third” thing. That is, if Jesus is a mixture of divine and human natures (one nature), He ceases to be either. He would be less than God because of a mixed nature with man and He would be different than man because mixed with God.
The natures are preserved and in fact Jesus is both God and man.
@@classicchristianliterature Okay thanks for your reply. My understanding of Monophysitism is that there are two kinds, one Jesus was all God, the other is he was all man. I've never heard of the one you just mentioned. But that's fine. I think the two nature approach is not Biblical. Chalcedon acted like Jesus did his miracles by his own power, that is, by his divine substance. But John makes it clear he did his works by the Father in him. Not only this, but he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. So the Father worked in him by the HS. So he didn't have his own attributes of deity. He was deity in his identity, however. So the two natures approach only causes confusion and is not biblical. And I might add, it can only explain why Jesus didn't know the hour of his return in his human nature only, which is a Nestorian understanding. So he had a human nature, given the HS without measure, and was deity in his identity of the Logos. Now in his exalted state he has all attributes of deity again.
@@Mike65809 correct me if I’m wrong, but perhaps you are arguing for kenosis?
Even so, it doesn’t solve the issue. You stated that now “in his exalted state he has all the attributes of deity”.
The issue remains because Christ in His exalted state remains human. He arose from the dead and ascended to heaven in a human body. How does the problem remain? Omnipresence is an aspect of divinity - is the human body of Jesus everywhere in its fullness at all times? The reformed orthodox approach this issue by affirming Chalcedon and the “extra calvinisticum”.