Who is Jesus to a Non-Trinitarian?

[PinSeeker]

I’m just parroting what trinitarian theologians / scholars say about the doctrine.

Yeah... what "trinitarian theologians / scholars," Matthias? That's the question. The very wrong ones, it seems, and you are then attributing that to several of us here, in error. That's the point.

As for "parroting".... understood. Stop.

The quote from Schaff explains why trinitarianism teaches - has to teach - that Jesus is not a human person.

Oh, my. Such misunderstanding, by Schaff and you. Believers in the triune Jehovah do not teach this, Matthias. My goodness.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.

I’ve used this article ever since it was published. The author is a trinitarian (Reformed) professor. Students - trinitarian and non-trinitarian - have commented how helpful it was to them in gaining a better understanding of the doctrine.

“This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person …”

(Tony Arsenal, “Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears … Oh My!”

Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears… Oh My

For those interested, read the article to find out why (trinitarian) theologians say that Christ is not a human person.

 

[Matthias]

Yeah... what "trinitarian theologians / scholars," Matthias? That's the question. The very wrong ones, it seems, and you are then attributing that to several of us here, in error. That's the point.

As for "parroting".... understood. Stop.


Oh, my. Such misunderstanding, by Schaff and you. Believers in the triune Jehovah do not teach this, Matthias. My goodness.

Grace and peace to you.

Your beef is with trinitarians who are telling us precisely what the doctrine teaches. You say they’re wrong. They have history on their side.

 

[PinSeeker]

And who do you think these Jews you cite are really?

This is an EXCELLENT question, APAK. I would like to hear your answer to that. It seems you and I would both agree with Paul when he writes...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)​

...and later when he writes...

"...not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Romans 9:6-8)​

...and later still when he writes...

"...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)​

...and the writer of Hebrews (which may also be Paul, but we can't determine that for sure)...

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2)​

Yes, let's hear your thoughts on this.

...you have it all wrong.

See, I think ~ I'm not going to speak for anyone, or put words in their mouths; that's not cool... ~ that you and Matthias have what I'm (and Enoch, and other like minded individuals) saying wrong, APAK.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

I think it would be helpful if those who are saying that the historical orthodox trinitarian theologians and scholars - Catholic and Protestant - I’ve quoted are not correct in what they are saying would post trinitarian theologians and scholars to support their assertion.

 

[ChristisGod]

I’m just parroting what trinitarian theologians / scholars say about the doctrine. I agree that what they are saying is what trinitarianism teaches.

The quote from Schaff explains why trinitarianism teaches - has to teach - that Jesus is not a human person.

Since He is the Eternal Son His Person is Divine. He is One Divine Person having 2 natures . A human and Divine nature .

 

[ChristisGod]

I think it would be helpful if those who are saying that the historical orthodox trinitarian theologians and scholars - Catholic and Protestant - I’ve quoted are not correct in what they are saying would post trinitarian theologians and scholars to support their assertion.

I will after work .

 

[PinSeeker]

Your beef is with trinitarians who are telling us precisely what the doctrine teaches...

Well, false trinitarians, sure. I don't really have a "beef" with them, but deny what they teach. But again, I'm still wondering who these "trinitarians" of whom you speak are.

You say they’re wrong.

Well, because they are. Again, who are they? Do you just not want to answer that?

They have history on their side.

In that they've been wrong all through history? Sure.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Since He is the Eternal Son His Person is Divine. He is One Divine Person having 2 natures . A human and Divine nature .

It’s really quite simple.

 

[PinSeeker]

Since He is the Eternal Son His Person is Divine. He is One Divine Person having 2 natures . A human and Divine nature .

It's quite astounding that both Matthias and I liked this post, is it not, Christophany? It causes one to wonder why he seems so troubled with what folks like me and Enoch are saying. But... so be it.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Gregory]

It's quite astounding that both Matthias and I liked this post, is it not, Christophany? It causes one to wonder why he seems so troubled with what folks like me and Enoch are saying. But... so be it.

Grace and peace to you!

This thread is a microcosm of all Christianity. Many different interpretations of the trinitarian doctrine. Which one is true? Is the trinitarian doctrine true?

 

[Matthias]

Well, false trinitarians, sure.

Those whom you are labeling “false trinitarians” are trinitarians who are faithful to historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I don't really have a "beef" with them, but deny what they teach.

I deny what they teach too, but not for the reason you do.

But again, I'm still wondering who these "trinitarians" of whom you speak are.

I’ve identified them by name and posted links so that anyone who is interested can verify the information for themselves. They’re all pointing back to the Council of Chalcedon.

Well, because they are.

Then in order to be consistent you must say that the Council of Chalcedon was wrong. Let’s get rid of it!

Again, who are they? Do you just not want to answer that?

See above.

In that they've been wrong all through history? Sure.

Grace and peace to you.

I think they got it wrong at Chalcedon, but it’s not often that an educated person on the subject who self-identifies as trinitarian does.

Chalcedonian Christianity. Which denominations endorse it?

 

[ChristisGod]

This thread is a microcosm of all Christianity. Many different interpretations of the trinitarian doctrine. Which one is true? Is the trinitarian doctrine true?

I’m 100% orthodox and historically accurate with the Trinity and 2 natures in Christ . Do you have any questions regarding my statements/ comments as they relate to the Creeds of Christendom?

 

[ChristisGod]

Those whom you are labeling “false trinitarians” are trinitarians who are faithful to historical orthodox trinitarianism.



I deny what they teach too, but not for the reason you do.



I’ve identified them by name and posted links so that anyone who is interested can verify the information for themselves. They’re all pointing back to the Council of Chalcedon.



Then in order to be consistent you must say that the Council of Chalcedon was wrong. Let’s get rid of it!



See above.



I think they got it wrong at Chalcedon, but it’s not often that an educated person on the subject who self-identifies as trinitarian does.

Chalcedonian Christianity. Which denominations endorse it?

What is particular do you think they got wrong at Chalcedon?


The Council of Chalcedon corrected the following errors regarding the Person of Christ;

Apollinarius -believed Christ did not have a human mind or soul, the Council had affirmed that Jesus was truly man, of a reasonable “rational” soul and body and that He was consubstantial (of the same substance) with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us."

Nestorianism,- believed that Christ was two different persons united in one body. So the Council wrote that He was "indivisibly, inseparably ... concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons."

Monophysitism,- believed that Christ had but one nature and that His union with the Divine nature cancelled His human nature, the council affirmed that Christ was "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably ... the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved."

One Person, Two Natures
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 brought to the climax the long debates about the make-up of Jesus: He is one Person, a Divine Person, having two natures, divine and human, in such a way that these two natures remain distinct after the union in the one Person. We call this union "hypostatic union" from the Greek "hypostasis" which means person - two natures joined in one Person.

His human nature is the same as ours, for he had a human body and a human soul. He was like us in all things except that He was without sin, even though He was tempted as we are (Hebrews 4:15). However, this does not mean that He had within Him disorderly passions. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 defined this truth against "impious Theodore of Mopsuestia".

His divine nature is the same as that of the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 defined that He is "one in substance [homoousios] with the Father".


Chalcedon (451 AD)

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to
confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame
one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is
also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul <meaning
human soul> and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as
his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as
far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin
only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in
respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf
of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who
is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord,
only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing
the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other,
without dividing them into two separate categories, without con-
trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness
of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the
"properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur
in one "person" and in one reality <hypostasis>. They are not
divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and
only and only-begotten Word <Logos> of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus
Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers <the Nicene
Creed> has handed down to us.


hope this helps,

 

[Matthias]

What is particular do you think they got wrong at Chalcedon?


The Council of Chalcedon corrected the following errors regarding the Person of Christ;

Apollinarius -believed Christ did not have a human mind or soul, the Council had affirmed that Jesus was truly man, of a reasonable “rational” soul and body and that He was consubstantial (of the same substance) with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us."

Nestorianism,- believed that Christ was two different persons united in one body. So the Council wrote that He was "indivisibly, inseparably ... concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons."

Monophysitism,- believed that Christ had but one nature and that His union with the Divine nature cancelled His human nature, the council affirmed that Christ was "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably ... the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved."

One Person, Two Natures
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 brought to the climax the long debates about the make-up of Jesus: He is one Person, a Divine Person, having two natures, divine and human, in such a way that these two natures remain distinct after the union in the one Person. We call this union "hypostatic union" from the Greek "hypostasis" which means person - two natures joined in one Person.

His human nature is the same as ours, for he had a human body and a human soul. He was like us in all things except that He was without sin, even though He was tempted as we are (Hebrews 4:15). However, this does not mean that He had within Him disorderly passions. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 defined this truth against "impious Theodore of Mopsuestia".

His divine nature is the same as that of the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 defined that He is "one in substance [homoousios] with the Father".
hope this helps,

I’m not a trinitarian. You should be asking @PinSeeker. I’ve been defending Chalcedon against his assertions.

 

[PinSeeker]

Those whom you are labeling “false trinitarians” are trinitarians who are faithful to historical orthodox trinitarianism.



I deny what they teach too, but not for the reason you do.



I’ve identified them by name and posted links so that anyone who is interested can verify the information for themselves. They’re all pointing back to the Council of Chalcedon.



Then in order to be consistent you must say that the Council of Chalcedon was wrong. Let’s get rid of it!



See above.



I think they got it wrong at Chalcedon, but it’s not often that an educated person who self-identifies as trinitarian does.

Chalcedonian Christianity. Which denominations endorse it?

So, in any church I've ever attended, we have never recited the Chalcedonian Creed. That, in and of itself, does not really mean anything, does not imply either agreement or disagreement with it. The Chalcedonian Creed is as follows:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."​

I'm not implying agreement or disagreement: Tell me what you think is wrong, there, Matthias.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I’m not a trinitarian.

Ah, that explains everything ~ what you are attributing to trinitarians and the strawman arguments you are making.

I think... it is enough.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

So, in any church I've ever attended, we have never recited the Chalcedonian Creed. That, in and of itself, does not really mean anything, does not imply either agreement or disagreement with it. The Chalcedonian Creed is as follows:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."​

I'm not implying agreement or disagreement: Tell me what you think is wrong, there, Matthias.

Grace and peace to you.

The one God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, not the Trinity.

My point is that trinitarians should be on the side of Chalcedon.

 

[Matthias]

Ah, that explains everything ~ what you are attributing to trinitarians and the strawman arguments you are making.

I think... it is enough.

Grace and peace to you.

All I’ve done is quote trinitarian scholars and theologians who are in agreement with Chalcedon against you. It’s their statements which you are calling “strawman arguments”.

 

[PinSeeker]

The one God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, not the Trinity.

I'm a bit confused by you're making this statement. Are you saying this in refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you saying this is what it essentially says? I mean, I think I know the answer to this question; you're not trinitarian, by your own admission.

My point is that trinitarians should be on the side of Chalcedon.

And what makes you think that trinitarians and the folks who comprised the Council of Chalcedon are at odds? Because it seems not...

All I’ve done is quote trinitarian scholars and theologians who are in agreement with Chalcedon against you.

See that's odd, because I'm not in disagreement. What I and Christophany and Enoch have said is very much in accordance with the Council of Chalcedon.

It’s their statements which you are calling “strawman arguments”.

No, those are very much all yours...

Grace and peace to you.