Is Jesus the Christ a human Person?

[Matthias]

“It took the early church four centuries to arrive at its definitive formulation of Christological doctrine. That formulation has lasted well; it’s fifteen-hundredth anniversary was celebrated in 1951. That 1980’s are far too close to 1951 to write a definitive opinion of that celebration. Yet it is beginning to look as though that tremendous anniversary - which marked an epochal triumph of a complex creed that had stood the test of fifteen centuries - must be seen as a commemoration rather than a celebration. The year 451 marked the beginning of defined orthodoxy, with respect to the doctrine of Christ, within Christendom. The year 1951 may someday be seen as marking its end.”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 430)

It’s forty years later now. Othodoxy continues in decline due, primarily, to neglect.

 

[Matthias]

“Orthodoxy has not vanished. Indeed, it can be said that there are more truly orthodox Christian believers in the world today than at any time since the Apostles began to preach. For fifteen hundred years the Chalcedonian Creed was the standard for Christian teaching about the person of the Lord. Not only did it provide the standard, but with its limiting terms, it set the boundaries for Christological discussion and controversy. In the Reformation era, when some of the more radical thinkers deviated from the principles of Chalcedon, they were expelled from the Christian community. Today, only three decades after the sesquimillennial celebrations, the standard appears to be forgotten. Not only is Chalcedon no longer the touchstone; teaching and discussion about Christ hardly even fits into the framework erected at Chalcedon. … In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity.”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, pp. 430, 431)

Most are fiddling while Chalcedon burns. Dr. Brown wasn’t.

 

[Matthias]

A Christmas card story. * The continuing saga of “Jesus is not a human person.” *

The card reads,

THE WORD did not become a philosophy, a theory, or a concept to be discussed, or debated, or pondered. But the WORD became a Person to be followed, enjoyed, and loved.

Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Why the Word did not become a human person

I can understand what the poet Roy Lessin is getting at in the sentiments expressed in this Christmas card. But something's not quite right...

exiledpreacher.blogspot.com

 

[Matthias]

“Christological Controversy

That brings us to the quandary of Christ and his two natures. It is uncontroversial, and rather straight forward, that the divine ousia was always eternally hypostatic in the person of God the Son. However, where it becomes complicated is when the human ousia was assumed by the divine hypostasis, God the Son.

If this ousia was hypostatic in the traditional sense, then it was a hypostasis. Thus, the term enhypostatic began to be used to describe the way that this second ousia existed. It existed not as its own hypostasis, but as an attached ousia to the divine hypostasis. Thus, Christ possesses two ousiai. The first is the divine ousia which is and always has been hypostatic. The second is a human ousia which came into existence as an attached enhypostatic ousia. This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person (which is a synonym for hypostasis) but that he is a divine person with a human nature. Another way to say this is that Christ’s human nature is not personal in and of itself, but is personalized by becoming part of the divine Logos (who is a personal).”

Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears… Oh My

Today, I had a brief discussion with someone who had questions about the distinction between Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and how the terms function in Christology. I thought it would be beneficial …

orthopathos.wordpress.com

This isn’t very difficult, but neither is it stated in scripture. This is Greek metaphysics.

”Christ is not a human person” -> “Jesus is not a human person” -> Council of Chalcedon -> historical orthodox trinitarianism.

 

[Matthias]

I’m occasionally asked by trinitarians who find out for the first time that trinitarianism teaches us that “Jesus is not a human person” if they attend a Church that teaches this. That’s a good question, but it’s tricky.

”Chalcedonian Christology is upheld by Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism, and thus comprises > 95% of Christianity.”

(Pew Research Center, “Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population,” December 19, 2011)

Does the trinitarian attend a Church that upholds Chalcedonian Christology? Almost certainly.

Does the trinitarian attend a Church that teaches Chalcedonian Christology? Probably not.

There’s a disconnect.

 

[civic]

Is is salvific ? Definitely not.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Since when has receiving the gift of salvation become a theology test ?

It’s not.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Knowledge puffeth up.

See 1 Cor 13- no love it’s useless .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

The doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union have nothing to do with a person being saved. They are not the gospel. Believing those doctrines of men was never a requirement of Jesus and the apostles.

The Church went astray. How many people have suffered and died because of it?

 

[civic]

The doctrine of unitarianism has nothing to do with a person being saved and has nothing to do with the gospel. Believing that doctrine of men was never a requirement of Jesus and the apostles.

Unitarians went astray. How many people have suffered because of it?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

“If the Trinity is essential for salvation, then it’s something we absolutely must teach students.” - Mike McGarry

It’s not essential for salvation.

 

[civic]

Quote mining fallacy

 

[Matthias]

“In one sense you do not have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, but in another sense you do. Let me explain. The Bible does not tell us that we must believe in the Trinity in order to become saved; that is, to become a Christian. On the other hand true Christians will end up believing in the Trinity because it is the proper teaching concerning God’s nature that has been revealed to us in scripture. … It is not believing in the Trinity that make us Christian. Rather, it is being a Christian (and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) that enables us to believe in the Trinity. So, in one sense, it’s not a requirement to affirm the doctrines the Trinity in order to become saved. However, the true Christian, will not deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the Holy Spirit will bear witness of truth (John 15:26) in the Trinity as true. This would mean that anyone who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, is probably not truly saved.”

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

Anyone who claims to be a Christian but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is probably not truly saved.

carm.org

Doublespeak.

It is not believing in the Trinity that makes us Christian. That’s right.

You do not have to believe in the Trinity in order to become saved [that’s right] but - if you deny the doctrine then you are probably not truly saved [that’s wrong, the opinion of a man - and a waffling one at that.]

 

[Matthias]

“Do you have to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved?

The Bible does not give us any answers to this question, because it only gives us hints about the Trinity. Nor does it tell us the exact doctrines that must be held to be saved.

Ultimately, I don’t the answer to the question. …”

Do You Need to Believe in the Trinity to Be Saved? - Stephen J Bedard

If I was to ask this question to a random selection of evangelical Christians, I suspect that they would overwhelmingly […]

www.stephenjbedard.com

I wonder what he would say if someone were to ask him, Do you have to believe in God in order to be saved?

 

[civic]

“In one sense you do not have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, but in another sense you do. Let me explain. The Bible does not tell us that we must believe in the Trinity in order to become saved; that is, to become a Christian. On the other hand true Christians will end up believing in the Trinity because it is the proper teaching concerning God’s nature that has been revealed to us in scripture. … It is not believing in the Trinity that make us Christian. Rather, it is being a Christian (and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) that enables us to believe in the Trinity. So, in one sense, it’s not a requirement to affirm the doctrines the Trinity in order to become saved. However, the true Christian, will not deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the Holy Spirit will bear witness of truth (John 15:26) in the Trinity as true. This would mean that anyone who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, is probably not truly saved.”

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

Anyone who claims to be a Christian but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is probably not truly saved.

carm.org

Doublespeak.

It is not believing in the Trinity that makes us Christian. That’s right.

You do not have to believe in the Trinity in order to become saved [that’s right] but - if you deny the doctrine then you are probably not truly saved [that’s wrong, the opinion of a man - and a waffling one at that.]

I can defend calvinism, deity of Christ and the Trinity better than him and he has a theology degree like you have. His is a MDiv.- what was your degree ? He uses nothing but ad homs when he debates its pathetic and an embarrassment. I respect some of his articles but not as a debater. When a person continually mocks, name calling and laughs at the one they are debating I lose respect for them and their argument. I have posted a few videos here that prove what I'm saying is true. So using the person as a source holds no water on this forum. I know plenty of other calvinists who are respectful and considerate in their debates.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

“Why is the Trinity doctrine so important to historic Christianity? Because there is no gift of salvation without it!”

No Trinity, No Salvation

Contemporary heretical sects or cults all claim to have the proper theological system to replace historic Christianity as the true heir of biblical revelation.

reasons.org

That’s calling it plain -> Believe in the Trinity or you will not be saved. Clearly, in this man’s mind, it is a salvation issue.

Unlike the trinitarians I quoted in posts #993 and #994, this man holds the line on orthodoxy.

This man holds a position on the requirements of salvation that Jesus and the apostles don’t.

The man is wrong, but he has the courage of his conviction. One day he will face the Messiah and give an account for his belief and teaching.

 

[synergy]

“Why is the Trinity doctrine so important to historic Christianity? Because there is no gift of salvation without it!”

No Trinity, No Salvation

Contemporary heretical sects or cults all claim to have the proper theological system to replace historic Christianity as the true heir of biblical revelation.

reasons.org

That’s calling it plain -> Believe in the Trinity or you will not be saved. Clearly, in this man’s mind, it is a salvation issue.

Unlike the trinitarians I quoted in posts #993 and #994, this man holds the line on orthodoxy.

This man holds a position on the requirements of salvation that Jesus and the apostles don’t.

The man is wrong, but he has the courage of his conviction. One day he will face the Messiah and give an account for his belief and teaching.

The big question is who do you say Jesus Christ is. As only God can save then Jesus must be God for you to be saved by Him, as Scripture undeniably attests to. For Jesus to be God, both His Personhood and His Nature must be 100% God which He is by virtue of the fact that He is the Uncreated Word of God. At His Incarnation, He became a human being in addition to Him already being 100% God. As such, it can be said that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human being. Now you have one remaining step before you include the Holy Spirit as God, which the NT reveals as a God Person, and you end up with the Holy Trinity. Easy as 1, 2, 3 ( pun intended).

 

[Behold]

Westcott and Hort

Westcott and Hort were pagan spiritualists who held seances to try to talk to the dead.

Didn't you know this about these "bible scholars"?

No you dont, and that is because your study is superficial, and your pov is based on that fact.

 

[synergy]

Westcott and Hort were pagan spiritualists who held seances to try to talk to the dead.

Didn't you know this about these "bible scholars"?

No you dont, and that is because your study is superficial, and your pov is based on that fact.

Wow! You learn something new everyday in this forum website.

 

[101G]

“I asked that question of so many of my friends recently, and almost all, save for only one, gave me the wrong answer. Some even became indignant for my even asking the question. Why they became indignant, I have no clue. Nevertheless it is an important question about the person of Jesus the Christ.

1. Is Jesus the Christ a human person?
2. Is Jesus the Christ a Divine person?
3. Is He both?
4. Is He neither?

What answer do you have for each of those four simple questions? … “

(Bob Stanley, “Is Jesus the Christ a Human Person? Think before you answer that question.”)

Is Jesus Christ a human person?

#5. a Man

101G.