Jesus Christ Truly God Truly man (human)

[redleghunter]

True. With Bible alone doctrine there is no surprise for this kind of heresy combined with bad teaching

Well Athanasius argued from the Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

It's the poison of Bible alone that people think like this that Christ is not human and God

No it’s called reading into the Bible ideas. Instead of drawing the truth from the Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

With the Catholic belief that God is impeccable, I will have to interpret the Catechism as meaning that Jesus had a fully human body. He clearly did not have a human spirit. Not if I am to believe he had an impeccable nature.

A human without a human soul is not a human.

 

[redleghunter]

Bible alone doctrine

What’s that exactly?

 

[charsan]

Well Athanasius argued from the Scriptures.

But not alone

 

[redleghunter]

But not alone

What did he use? LOGOS software?

 

[charsan]

What’s that exactly?

Sola Scriptura, Bible alone is what evangelicals do instead of relying on the Church. The love of the individual is supreme in evangelicalism so that anyone can say they believe anything.

 

[charsan]

What did he use? LOGOS software?

He was not an evangelical nor use the silly idea of Sola Scriptura

 

[His student]

Yes the Irish Twins discuss with St Patrick the beliefs rejected by the church catholic.

In Bible college we were required to write a clear definition of the Trinity in our own words.

Mine read as follows:

"We believe in the one true God beside Whom is no other. The one true God exists eternally as three distinct persons - each one of which has eternally possessed all of the attributes necessary that He might be correctly referred to as the one true God."

That brings in all of the things necessary to say in order to escape the charges leveled by the Irish Twins. It has served me for more than a half century and I have quoted it or something like it in order to correct the various "heretical" formulations I have heard from fellow Trinitarians.

I still do correct them even as I, myself, have broadened my horizons in that regard.

One thing has really struck me as I have studied the subject in the last 20 years or so and listened to numerous debates on the subject. That is the quickness of Trinitarians to condemn to Hell those who take other views. This - in spite of the fact that a full 95 or more percent of their own brothers and sisters and even their elders and pastors couldn't provide a non-heretical definition of the Trinity to save their souls.

It's almost impossible to listen to a debate between a Trinitarian and a Oneness proponent wherein someone doesn't resort to creating straw men out of the supposed beliefs of their opponent.

In short - after approaching the subject with studied fairness - I have come to the conclusion that both the Oneness and Trinitarian models as rightly defined have something to recommend them.

** I am quick point out here that I can't let many other conflicting views about the nature of God (such as Arienism) off the hook so easily.

 

[Christ is Lord]

It's the poison of Bible alone that people think like this that Christ is not human and God

You can make the case for Jesus being fully God and fully man with just the Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

Sola Scriptura, Bible alone is what evangelicals do instead of relying on the Church. The love of the individual is supreme in evangelicalism so that anyone can say they believe anything.

Nope. But understand why there is so much confusion of the matter.

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scripturait is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.​

More:
Understanding Sola Scriptura

 

[Mark Quayle]

Poll up. If no explain your view.

I’m setting this thread up to hear the non orthodox positions. I know they are out there because in General Theology we see them but never explained. Now is your chance.

I also have encountered posters from historically orthodox (little o) denominations which have some doubts but hold to the creeds. Would like to hear why there are doubts.

Thanks.

An excerpt from a good book by RC Sproul: NOT A CHANCE (God, Science, and the Revolt Against Reason).

"Godness and humanness are mutually exclusive categories. Something or someone cannot be God and man at the same time and in the same relationship (emphasis mine -MQ). That is why the formula for the incarnation is not that Christ is totally God and totally man at the same time and in the same way. We are not saying that Christ's physical body is a divine body. We are saying that the single person has two natures. The divine nature is truly divine, the human nature is truly human. The two coexist or are united in one person, but the two natures are not mixed, confused, separated, or divided. Each nature retains its own attributes (see the Chalcedonian Creed). The divine nature is not both divine and human. The human nature is not both human and divine. The person is both human and divine, but not in the same relationship.

"We add to the mystery by insisting that the divine nature is not limited to the person of Christ. Deity is not restricted in being to the confines of the human person of Jesus. The finite (human nature) cannot contain the infinite (divine nature). Christ's divine nature is infinite, but his human nature is finite."

 

[redleghunter]

One thing has really struck me as I have studied the subject in the last 20 years or so and listened to numerous debates on the subject. That is the quickness of Trinitarians to condemn those who take other views.

Two reasons why that may be. First it is a core Christian belief. Second if Jesus is anything other than what the Creeds present then He is not the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Christ is Lord]

The love of the individual is supreme in evangelicalism so that anyone can say they believe anything.

I agree with this in part. You can see this when the cat got of the bag during the Reformation with the Anabaptist for example. However, you can make the case that we’ve always had heretical beliefs in the church before the Reformation

 

[redleghunter]

He was not an evangelical nor use the silly idea of Sola Scriptura

Considering the church fathers demanded all doctrines be drawn from Holy Scriptures they sure did employ Scripture alone as the only infallible source to test truth claims. There’s a reason for that and why they called the Scriptures the inspired word of God.

 

[devin553344]

A human without a human soul is not a human.

Sure it is. God's spirit with a human body is still subject to human temptations and can therefore be the Christ. Why not?

 

[charsan]

You can make the case for Jesus being fully God and fully man with just the Bible.

Not the point because you can also make the case that people in this thread have because they looked at only the Bible. The Bile was never meant to be used as evangelicals use it but since they do more heresies have happened in the last 1600 hundred yrs than anytime. For me "Bible alone" is the most poisonous doctrine ever which ignores that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[redleghunter]

He was not an evangelical nor use the silly idea of Sola Scriptura

An evangelist is one who puts their primary mission of preaching the Gospel. I’m sure that was something dear to St Athanasius.

 

[charsan]

Considering the church fathers demanded all doctrines be drawn from Holy Scriptures they sure did employ Scripture alone as the only infallible source to test truth claims. There’s a reason for that and why they called the Scriptures the inspired word of God.

Actually they did not use Sola Scriptura poison. We can go round and round and you will never ever convince me of any Bible alone stuff being good. So I am not going to respond anymore and leave the thread

 

[Christ is Lord]

Not the point because you can also make the case that people in this thread have because they looked at only the Bible. The Bile was never meant to be used as evangelicals use it but since they do more heresies have happened in the last 1600 hundred yrs than anytime. For me "Bible alone" is the most poisonous doctrine ever which ignores that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Fair enough. You do indeed have this greater sense of “me in the woods with my Bible” and since everyone can interpret scripture it’s more common to see heretical views. However, my point is you always had heretical views even in the NT.