Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Nicea325]

Quote:Nicea:
Develop to much? Did the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation develop over the centuries to much that it did not resemble what the early church taught? Yes you posted enough to make your point,but not to debunk 2,000 years of history. Schaff is incredibly well read,but sure is lacking in the comprehension department.

Lincoln7:

When it comes to the Trinity, however, we find clear and vast evidence in sacred scripture however, with the papacy, to my eye we do not… With regard to Schaff, I think he is a very capable man.

Nope! Not true at all. The only reason you make such a conclusion is because it has been handed to us for centuries, hence the understanding of the Trinity. However, that was not the case the first several hundred years. Yes the Trinity can be deduced from Scripture,but only implicitly not explicitly. Did scripture explain the complexity of Trinitarian doctrine? Nope! The chuch gave us the deeper understanding of the Trinity. Show us where **Scripture explicitly **teaches about the three persons:
God the Father…
God the Son…and
God the Holy Spirit?

Likewise that the three persons are distinct:

The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Quote:Nicea
Different interpretations? Seriously? We have scores of church fathers words about the primacy of Rome where it is evident what they said and believed. It is called revisionism by many today because it conflicts with their novel beliefs,plain and simple.

Lincoln7:
We have scores of fathers who say a lot about Peter in many places yes… In no way do they all therefore suddenly think the Bishop of Rome is supreme over them… Accusing us of revisionism is rather bold… It’s more realism… We’re simply holding Trent accountable for its comments on their claims There’s no revisionism in it, it’s just what’s there in history.

Who said supreme? I said they believed he held a primacy going back to St.Peter. If you do not believe me, I will be more than glad to provide several quotes. And accusing of us not holding sufficient evidence for the past 2,000 years is rather naive on your part and those who follow your path. Realism? If it is “realism” as you claim,then all of history would weigh on your side,but guess what? It does not,thus it is not realism or factual. If it “realism” as you believe, I find it so strange not one ECF ever rejects the primacy of Rome or calls it heretical or false?

Quote:Nicea
All authors have opinions,but to bad opinions are merely that…opinions. An opinion with no sound evidence is nothing.

Lincoln7:
With respect, i think Schaff has rather large amounts of evidence for his claims.

And better yet,more respect to the men who lived much closer to the Apostolic Age and had the evidence long before Mr.Schaff. Hhmmmm? You who holds more credence? Men living closer to the Apostles or a man living 2,000 years separated from Christ?

Quote:Nicea
Again…present to me one ECF clearly teaching the primacy of Rome is: heretical,false, to be rejected,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ in the first 500 years?

I did… As soon as we see Bishop victor in Rome attempting to use authority outside of his jurisdiction, Irenaus rebukes him for it… He has no knowledge of a universal papacy, he sees Victor attempting to interfere in something he has no right to and rebukes him…(1).

Ah no! Obviously you did not like my rebuttal. Irenaus rebukes Victor’s decision to cut off the Asian churches not his primacy. I asked you: show one word where Irenaus cleary states he is rebuking Victor’s claim to universal jurisdiction or his Victor’s primacy? I want to read his words clearly stating Victor has no such authority or primacy over other distant churches? Likewise, where are the protests from the other churches?

Likewise, if you believe Irenaus has no knowledge of universal jurisdiction,then I find it so odd that case after case after case throughout early church history many bishops outside their jurisdiction took grave matters to Rome for appeals and for Rome’s decision. Why? I thought the pope has no jurisdiction to do such a thing? But you claim they had no knowledge?
I have many writings of the ECF dating covering nearly 1,000 years and I have yet to find one: rejecting it,calling it heretical,schismatic, or a usurpation of Christ.

Regards

Lincs.

(1) - History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Ante Nicence Christianity AD 100-325, Phillip Schaff, Oak harbor, WA, Logos Research systems inc, 1997 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v…ml#v.vi.x-p0.1

I still have one up on you. Try reading the primary sources of the ECF from their own mouths,writings and not depend so much on secondary sources.

 

[PRmerger]

No, just referring to quasi-Christian groups (not sure why you listed the Mennonites there, unless I am missing something about their beliefs on the Trinity?).

My bad. Mennonites are Trinitarians.

 

[PRmerger]

No, just referring to quasi-Christian groups (not sure why you listed the Mennonites there, unless I am missing something about their beliefs on the Trinity?). They are not dim bulbs at all. However, what they fail to do is** take the entirety of the Scriptural witness** about the nature of the Trinity into consideration.

No. What they fail to do is take the entirety of the APOSTOLIC witness about the nature of the Trinity.

Each and every Christian who proclaims the Trinity does so because the Catholic Church, using both Scripture and Tradition, was guided into this understanding of the revelation of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope! Not true at all. The only reason you make such a conclusion is because it has been handed to us for centuries, hence the understanding of the Trinity.

'zactly. :yup:

 

[IggyAntiochus]

The chuch gave us the deeper understanding of the Trinity. Show us where **Scripture explicitly **teaches about the three persons:
God the Father…

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,” – 2 Corinthians 1:3

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” – Ephesians 1:3

Other verses: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Peter 1:3;

God the Son…and

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1

“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." – Revelation 4:11 (the words of the 24 elders to Jesus). 

“…Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” – Acts 20:28

“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” – Titus 2:13

“…To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” – 2 Peter 1:1

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – Romans 10:9,13.  Note: Paul reveals Jesus to be the same “Lord” referred to in Joel 2:32, which he quotes.  In Joel 2:32, “LORD” is Jehovah/Yahweh.

God the Holy Spirit?

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’” – Acts 5:3-4

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11)
Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
Savior (Rom. 8:1-27)

Likewise that the three persons are distinct:

Jesus is not the Father: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The grammatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to Trinitarian doctrine. First, each person of the Trinity is identified individually with use of the definite article preceding each (the Father…the Son…the Holy Spirit). The use of the definite article for each person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, this verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form “the name of”. What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share that name. Other verses identify the Father and the Son as two separate persons (John 3:17, 35; 5:22-23, 31-32; 8:16-18; 11:41-42; 12:28; 14:31; 17:1-26; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24-28; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 4:4; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 4:10; 2 John 3).

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit: The first evidence of this is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph – Matthew 28:19 identifies the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, using definite articles preceding each. Next, Jesus tells us that He would send the Holy Spirit (“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” – John 15:26). This verse is revealing in that each person of the Trinity is mentioned as separate individual persons. Key elements in this verse include 1) Jesus will send the Holy Spirit, 2) from the Father, 3) the Holy Spirit will go out from the Father, 4) and will testify about Jesus. Another verse that identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit separately is John 16:7, “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” Here we have two important elements: 1) Jesus will go away, and 2) send the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus arose and ascended in his physical human body, the Spirit He sends is not Jesus Himself. Another important verse is John 14:16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (emphasis added). Once again, the elements are here to show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus said He would ask the Father. If Jesus were simply a manifestation of the Father, then He would be asking Himself, which sounds neurotic rather than orthodox. The verse also refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Counselor” separate from Jesus.

The Father is not the Holy Spirit: We find Paul describing in Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. If the Holy Spirit were the same person as the Father, he would not need to intercede with himself.

contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

 

[PRmerger]

And the Qu’ran says we worship three gods.

And why do you think the Koran came to this conclusion?

Now, I wouldn’t expect that you would have any certainty about the source for the Koran’s misinterpretation of Christian doctrine…so let’s just speculate here.

Do you think that Muhammad came to this conclusion from reading the Christian Scriptures, or from listening to the bishops/elders/presbyters of Christianity?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

No. What they fail to do is take the entirety of the APOSTOLIC witness about the nature of the Trinity.

We’re discussing the scriptural form of the apostolic witness. Therefore, we’re discussing how they fail to take the entirety of the scriptural witness of the Trinity into account. The apostolic witness, vis a vie church teaching, is no different than what Scripture presents to us.

Each and every Christian who proclaims the Trinity does so because the Catholic Church, using both Scripture and Tradition, was guided into this understanding of the revelation of God.

That’s an assertion, not an argument.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

And why do you think the Koran came to this conclusion?

Now, I wouldn’t expect that you would have any certainty about the source for the Koran’s misinterpretation of Christian doctrine…so let’s just speculate here.

Do you think that Muhammad came to this conclusion from reading the Christian Scriptures, or from listening to the bishops/elders/presbyters of Christianity?

Well, as you said, I am not sure specifically where he came to this conclusion. It doesn’t seem evident that he gleaned it from reading the Scriptures. Why? Because according to Islamic tradition, he couldn’t read. We do know he had contact not only with orthodox Christians, but also many heretical ones as well.

If I may, I’d like to ask you a question in return. Do you think he learned this mistaken notion from the Scriptures?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s an assertion, not an argument.

Yes, it *is *my assertion.

 

[PRmerger]

If I may, I’d like to ask you a question in return. Do you think he learned this mistaken notion from the Scriptures?

Yes, I do indeed.

I find it hard to believe that there were Christian bishops/priests/presbyters proclaiming that Christians believe in 3 gods.

However, it is quite credible that someone would read the Scriptures (or have someone read them to him) and conclude, “These Christians believe in 3 gods!”

 

[PRmerger]

. We do know he had contact not only with orthodox Christians, but also many heretical ones as well.

Source for this, please?

 

[PRmerger]

We’re discussing the scriptural form of the apostolic witness.

We’re talking about how people can read the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the Trinity. How? Quite easily. When taken out of the context of the entire Apostolic Deposit of Faith, it becomes quite easy to believe that the Trinity is not in the Bible.

The apostolic witness, vis a vie church teaching, is no different than what Scripture presents to us.

Well, this is to be understood with nuance. The Apostolic witness gave guidance, context and interpretation for that which we read in Scripture.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Yes, I do indeed.

I find it hard to believe that there were Christian bishops/priests/presbyters proclaiming that Christians believe in 3 gods.

Not from the orthodox churches, certainly. At the time, however, Arabia was chock full of various heretical sects, including Nestorians, Monophysites, Jacobites, Arians, Manicheans and Gnostics. Muhammad’s own uncle, Warraqa was an Ebionite priest.

However, it is quite credible that someone would read the Scriptures (or have someone read them to him) and conclude, “These Christians believe in 3 gods!”

Okay, well, let’s examine then what the Qu’ran actually says about the Trinity, and see if Muhammad learned it from the Bible?

Surah 2:116 - “They say: ‘God hath begotten a son’: Glory be to Him, Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

Surah 23:91 - “No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods)

Surah 19:35 - “It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be’, and it is.”

But the last bit is the most interesting:

Surah 5:72-76: “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Serve ye in place of Allah (min dooni Allahi) that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower.” [emphasis added]

Now, why does the Qu’ran introduce the concept of Mary into the equation when trying to refute the Trinity? Well, another Surah explains why:

Surah 5:116: “And behold! God will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, thou I know not what is in Thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden.”

Not only did Muhammad misunderstand that we do not worship three gods…He thought Mary was a part of it! Nowhere in the Qu’ran is the Trinity referenced as Father, Son, Spirit…the only time you will find the term holy spirit in the Qu’ran is in calling the angel Gabriel the holy Spirit…Now, let me ask, is it possible for any person who has their head screwed on in any normal fashion whatsoever, to read the New Testament and come to the conclusion that the Holy Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary???

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Source for this, please?

The Muslim Jesus, Tarif Khalidi, Harvard University Press, 2001, P.9, P.17

Encyclopedia of Islam, Online ed., Warraqa Ibn Nawfal

 

[PRmerger]

The Muslim Jesus, Tarif Khalidi, Harvard University Press, 2001, P.9, P.17

Encyclopedia of Islam, Online ed., Warraqa Ibn Nawfal

Do you have a link, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Now, why does the Qu’ran introduce the concept of Mary into the equation when trying to refute the Trinity? Well, another Surah explains why:

Surah 5:116: “And behold! God will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, thou I know not what is in Thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden.”

Not only did Muhammad misunderstand that we do not worship three gods…He thought Mary was a part of it! Nowhere in the Qu’ran is the Trinity referenced as Father, Son, Spirit…the only time you will find the term holy spirit in the Qu’ran is in calling the angel Gabriel the holy Spirit…Now, let me ask, is it possible for any person who has their head screwed on in any normal fashion whatsoever, to read the New Testament and come to the conclusion that the Holy Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary???

No. I suppose you are right and that, from the above, it’s more likely that Muhammad heard Christians preaching, rather than reading the Scriptures and concluded that Christians are polytheistic.

However! On the bright side of Catholic apologetics this does seem to add a brick to the fortress that veneration of Mary was present in the earliest days of the Church.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

No. I suppose you are right and that, from the above, it’s more likely that Muhammad heard Christians preaching, rather than reading the Scriptures and concluded that Christians are polytheistic.

However! On the bright side of Catholic apologetics this does seem to add a brick to the fortress that veneration of Mary was present in the earliest days of the Church.

It’s possible Muhammad got this idea from the following:

“Kollyridians or Collyridians were adorers of Mary in 4th century Arabia, as Epiphanius mentioned in his writing against heretics (see: Haer. 78, 23; 79). He coined the expression Collyridians which has the meaning of “cake-eater-sect”. Leontius of Byzance had a different name for them. He called them “Philomarianites”, meaning Mary-lovers (PG 87, 1364). The priestesses of this sect used to present Our Lady with cakes or a special kind of bread (kolluris) intended as offerings as was the custom in pre-Christian times. This sect, mainly consisting of women or at least led by woman priests, propagated what amounts to a Goddess cult regarding Our Lady. Epiphanius had this warning on their behalf: “Although Mary is the most beautiful and holy and worthy of praise, we don’t owe her adoration” (Haer. 79, 7, PG 42, 752). In a different passage Epiphanius uses even stronger words: “Adoration must cease. For Mary is no goddess nor has she received her body from heaven. (oute gar theos hae Maria oute ap’ouranou exousa to soma)” (Haer. 78, 24). Collyridians are also known and mentioned by John Damascene (PG 94, 728).” (The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute, Roman Catholic commentary)

 

[Nicea325]

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,” – 2 Corinthians 1:3

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” – Ephesians 1:3

Other verses: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Peter 1:3;

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1

“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." – Revelation 4:11 (the words of the 24 elders to Jesus). 

“…Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” – Acts 20:28

“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” – Titus 2:13

“…To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” – 2 Peter 1:1

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – Romans 10:9,13.  Note: Paul reveals Jesus to be the same “Lord” referred to in Joel 2:32, which he quotes.  In Joel 2:32, “LORD” is Jehovah/Yahweh.

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’” – Acts 5:3-4

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11)
Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
Savior (Rom. 8:1-27)

Jesus is not the Father: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The grammatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to Trinitarian doctrine. First, each person of the Trinity is identified individually with use of the definite article preceding each (the Father…the Son…the Holy Spirit). The use of the definite article for each person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, this verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form “the name of”. What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share that name. Other verses identify the Father and the Son as two separate persons (John 3:17, 35; 5:22-23, 31-32; 8:16-18; 11:41-42; 12:28; 14:31; 17:1-26; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24-28; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 4:4; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 4:10; 2 John 3).

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit: The first evidence of this is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph – Matthew 28:19 identifies the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, using definite articles preceding each. Next, Jesus tells us that He would send the Holy Spirit (“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” – John 15:26). This verse is revealing in that each person of the Trinity is mentioned as separate individual persons. Key elements in this verse include 1) Jesus will send the Holy Spirit, 2) from the Father, 3) the Holy Spirit will go out from the Father, 4) and will testify about Jesus. Another verse that identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit separately is John 16:7, “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” Here we have two important elements: 1) Jesus will go away, and 2) send the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus arose and ascended in his physical human body, the Spirit He sends is not Jesus Himself. Another important verse is John 14:16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (emphasis added). Once again, the elements are here to show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus said He would ask the Father. If Jesus were simply a manifestation of the Father, then He would be asking Himself, which sounds neurotic rather than orthodox. The verse also refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Counselor” separate from Jesus.

The Father is not the Holy Spirit: We find Paul describing in Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. If the Holy Spirit were the same person as the Father, he would not need to intercede with himself.

contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

Again,the only reason you make such a conclusion using all those scriptral verses is because it has been handed to us for centuries by the CHURCH, hence the understanding of the Trinity.

If it was that cut-and-dry…then why didn’t the Arians catch it? What was their argument? Arius disliked homoousios because it is not found in the Bible.

Why bother to formulate the Nicene Creed if scripture was so explicit about the dcotrine?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Again,the only reason you make such a conclusion using all those scriptral verses is because it has been handed to us for centuries by the CHURCH, hence the understanding of the Trinity.

No. I believe it is evident from those verses. The Church did, too.

If it was that cut-and-dry…then why didn’t the Arians catch it? What was their argument? Arius disliked homoousios because it is not found in the Bible.

Their “argument” was to take individual passages of Scripture and spend volumes examining one passage and never take any other passages of Scripture into the context of the one they were examining. However, in complaining about this very thing, Athanasius remarks: “Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable.”

Why bother to formulate the Nicene Creed if scripture was so explicit about the dcotrine?

To teach what the apostles taught, and instruct the faithful what not to believe or accept as apostolic.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Again,the only reason you make such a conclusion using all those scriptral verses is because it has been handed to us for centuries by the CHURCH, hence the understanding of the Trinity.

No. I believe it is evident from those verses. The Church did, too.

It is evident to you now whose living how many centuries later? And why? Because you have those centuries all behind you which explained the Trinity in a deeper way. Was it that evident then? If it was so evident as you claim,then how odd they had to wait nearly 350 years to explain it?

Quote:
If it was that cut-and-dry…then why didn’t the Arians catch it? What was their argument? Arius disliked homoousios because it is not found in the Bible.

Their “argument” was to take individual passages of Scripture and spend volumes examining one passage and never take any other passages of Scripture into the context of the one they were examining. However, in complaining about this very thing, Athanasius remarks: “Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable.”

Exactly! Not only that,but you are also forgetting one thing: Sacred Tradition. The Catholic bishops who were not Arianist also stated that Sacred Tradition also taught Jesus was God. They did not use the Bible-only for their support or evidence.

Quote:
Why bother to formulate the Nicene Creed if scripture was so explicit about the dcotrine?

To teach what the apostles taught, and instruct the faithful what not to believe or accept as apostolic.

Exactly! Called Sacred Tradition which precedes anything NT writing.