Originally posted by Magma2
Originally posted by Semper Fideles
Enough with the hypothetical "We can't embrace paradoxes or mysteries" from the Clarkians. I want you guys to come out and tell me you don't embrace this:
Quote:
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.
Do you believe the above or not? It surely embraces an epistemic paradox.
Chalcedon is fine as far as it goes, but let´s hope it´s not the last word on the subject. I also agree with Anthony and I don't find anything particularly contradictory in it, albeit some of it is simply nonsense. If you´d like to discuss the Definition of Chalcedon, why don´t you start another thread under "œTheology" and begin by defining substance? Thanks in advance.
As you can see above, Sean Gerety has called portions of Chalcedon nonsense. I think this is a serious charge - one that would cause a minister of the Gospel to be brought up on charges.
I'd like for him to give a defense of this view. I would also like for him to harmonize his belief that neither mystery nor paradox nor apparent contradiction can be accepted in the Christian faith with the above Creed. I would like him to remove all issues of mystery in this Creed or deny the Creed because he disagrees with it or it presents apparent contradictions that he cannot submit to.
I would like people to present the tensions and mysteries that are difficult to unravel to give ample opportunity for Sean and others to show how human reason can remove all mystery from this historic Creed. This also gives him, and others, opportunity to show where the above is nonsense.
Here's one for starters
God is immutable.
The Persons of the Trinity are immutable.
The Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature which was mutable.
Not only did this "change" the Person (from one to two natures) but the Person that was immutable took on a mutable nature.
[Edited on 5-27-2006 by SemperFideles]