speratus,

I'm afraid that what you offered is not "exegesis", but nothing more than the recitation of the same errors which I have pointed out, e.g., the admixture of the divine nature of Christ with the human nature of Christ, to which Chalcedon rejects. While it is affirmed that the divine communicable attributes were given, the incommunicable attributes were not and could not have been given to the human nature. Gerlach's conclusions re: Col 2:9 are clearly "eisogesis" and cannot be found in the text regardless of how much gratuitous latitude might be allowed. Why not compare Gerlach's statement, assumed to be representative of the Lutheran position here:


In Christology this verse is one of the primary passages which offers evidence for the doctrine of the communication of the attributes. Our particular concern is with the genus maiestaticum, especially with the communication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Jesus Christ.



with that of the Chalcedon Creed's statement:


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;



The difference between the two is so obvious that no further comment need be added by me.

Secondly, to lump Calvin and Zwingli together into the same camp when it comes to the matter of the "real presence" and myriad other considerations of the Lord's Supper is simply ludicrous and ignorant. For even a novice reader of Calvin and Zwingli or simply knowing the history of the the two in regard to this issue knows that the two men were poles apart. Here are three sources on Calvin's views on the Supper:

- The Lord's Supper
- Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]