Everyone should read Sean's quotation of Reymond more carefully as the portion quoted does not give the complete picture as to Reymond's position on Chalcedon.
You took the word's right out of my mouth, Speigel. I was just about to start my own reply to Sean's misrepresentation of Reymond's position when I read your post. Now, I have one simple question for Sean. I only see three options for why you misrepresented Reymond's position here.
1) You failed to read just a few sentences down in the same paragraph and were unaware that Reymond wrote this...
2) You read the section cited by Speigel and were simply unable to comprehend what Reymond was saying...
3) You read the section cited by Speigel and understood what Reymond was saying, but deliberately decided to misrepresent him anyway...
So, which option applies to you, Sean?
Sean wrote,
What do you mean, so what? Does the Ninth Commandment means nothing to you (which, I guess it doesn't as anyone reading your posts can see).
I clearly explained what I meant in the three points that followed my question. Did you not read them? Or were you unable to comprehend what I wrote? Also, in what way have I violated the Ninth Commandment here? I challenge you to provide even a single example (and please don't quote me out of context in order to misrepresent my position, as you did with Reymond). Your "two-person" view of the Incarnation is legitimately labeled "Nestorianism" as it has been historically defined, and is a blatant rejection of the Chalcedonian formulation. Moreover, as Reymond rightly observes, "when one moves beyond the borders of Chalcedon he has decided to choose heresy" (Systematic Theology, p. 621). Thus, I have hardly borne false witness against you.
I have not read through the transcripts [of the Council of Ephesus], but you're off your nut as well if you think Cyril's theology was "absolutely correct." See Bugay above. Cyril's theology got " wacked" at Chalcedon. Ironically, it was Nestorious who was evidently vindicated (something I never suspected)
I'm not sure how you (or Bugay) figure that Cyril's theology got "wacked" or Nestorius' view "vindicated" when Chalcedon explicitly "declared the Cyrillian Council at Ephesus in 431 to be the third ecumenical council and adopted both Cyril's synodical letters against Nestorius as a refutation of Nestoriamism and Leo's Tome as a refutation of Eutychianism" (Reymond, Systematic Theology, p. 607). And just to be clear, I was referring to Cyril's theology in his " letters against Nestorius," and specifically his theology regarding Christ's two natures hypostatically united in one Person, when I said that his theology was "absolutely correct."
In fact, why don't you go and post somewhere else? I think you've said your piece and now you're just repeating yourself.
Ok, if you don't want me to post here anymore, I won't post here anymore. I pray that God will open your eyes and grant you repentance for willingly promoting this heretical view of the Incarnation.
So the Definition should never be used to stifle continuing reflection upon Scripture. But I would insist with Berkouwer that "there is a 'halt' at Chalcedon which will indeed continue to sound against every form of speculation which attempts to penetrate into this mystery [of the divine human Person - Reymond] further than is warranted in the light of revelation."
Said another way, the Definition of Chalcedon does mark the terminal point and legitimately so, of all speculation which would discard either its "one Person" doctrine or its "two natures" doctrine so as to eliminate the supernaturalness of the Incarnation and the incarnate Christ. And history is replete with examples that justify the oft-made declaration that "when one moves beyond the borders of Chalcedon he has decided to choose a heresy." — Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, page 621.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment