Council of Nicea

  • Thread starter Thread starter riggo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

riggo

Guest
I have heard things about he Council of Nicea, and I’ve also heard James (I hate Catholics) White spew all kinds of stuff out about the Council of Nicea. Can anyone comment on why some protestants think this was a “protestant” council? What are they basing their claims on? Why is that council above others always cited by protestants?
 
I wouldn’t even know why they would say it’s a Protestant council, as many of the Church Fathers who attended there were all Catholic, and in fact there were two Papal legates present as well. Funny that they would also claim this to be a “Protestant” council when some Fundamentalist circles claim that Constantine “started” the Catholic Church, when he was one of the presiders of Nicaea.
 
If you would like to read what Dr. White has to say about this specific subject, here’s a link.

Naturally, I think he’s twisting the ECF. Nonetheless, this is what he has to say about the “Protestant” council of Nicea.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
If you would like to read what Dr. White has to say about this specific subject, here’s a link.

Naturally, I think he’s twisting the ECF. Nonetheless, this is what he has to say about the “Protestant” council of Nicea.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Ryan, Always remember this if it wasn’t for us Catholics James White would not have a job. Also, I couldn’t find it but could you please tell me on what date that article appeared on? Thank you and God bless all here.
 
White’s article on Nicaea would have appeared a short time before Fr. Barbour’s Envoy article. The Envoy article is July/Aug 1998, so I would guess the CRI article would be early 1998, or 1997. I was receiving the CRI Journal at that time, I remember the exchange. It used to be published quarterly (4 times a year), then switched to bi-monthly. Envoy is sadly having financial difficulty I think but much of it is online.

Phil P
 
J.R.:
… I couldn’t find it but could you please tell me on what date that article appeared on? Thank you and God bless all here.
Click to expand...
Truthfully, I’m not sure. That said, his site says that in Feb '02, he stated that in “the next edition of the CRI journal” his previously linked article would appear.

I hope that helps.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
It’s worth reading what he says in this link about Athanasius, and then reading the following quote:
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” (Athanasius of Alexandria, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin)
Click to expand...
 
Darn it, Mr. Provaznik, we keep posting on top of eachother!

Say…you wouldn’t want to sign up on my map linked in my signature, would you? I’d love to see you’re name…

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Here’s the CRM link (“This article first appeared in the Spring 1997 issue of the Christian Research Journal.”).
 
Ryan << Say…you wouldn’t want to sign up on my map linked in my signature, would you? I’d love to see you’re name… >>

Who me? I need a good pic of myself. Don’t have one, except maybe this

http://www.bringyou.to/dogone2.jpg

Phil P
 
It may have been considered Protestant since the Pope did not attend?

Notworthy
 
40.png
RyanL:
If you would like to read what Dr. White has to say about this specific subject, here’s a link.

Naturally, I think he’s twisting the ECF. Nonetheless, this is what he has to say about the “Protestant” council of Nicea.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Too bad such an intelligent man would ignore the facts. I wouldnt say he twisted anything, rather downplayed and left out what the ECFs had to say about the teachings Catholics still believe today.

Also I like how he mentioned the Council of Constantinople that comprised the other half of the Creed, especially this line which Protestants dont accept:
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
 
Thanks for the link! I just read JW’s article. It’s amazing how he can blindly ignore overwhelming amounts of irrefutable historical data!!! Thanks also for the Athanasius quote on Mary. Everyone of those attending who were “orthodox” believed in Eucharist, the Pope, etc. I love the footnotes at the bottom, in which JW justifies his position that this was not a Catholic Council because noone attending believed in the Papacy, Eucharist, Mary, purgatory, etc.

Then you read quotes from Athanasius and many many others like him that just refute the distortions of JW back in his face. I guess I have a question - what blinds a man to that extent - that he will force tunnel vision upon himself?
Thanks for the help!
Riggo.
 
40.png
riggo:
what blinds a man to that extent - that he will force tunnel vision upon himself?
Click to expand...
Some say money; he wouldn’t make nearly as much as a Catholic. Personally, I don’t believe that. I think that it’s a deep seated but honest and fundimental misunderstanding of what happend at Calvary.

To Dr. White, it was a perfect atoning work, perfectly completed, and never to be repeated. This is also a very Catholic understanding (just don’t tell Dr. White). The difference is, Dr. White thinks it is also perfectly applied to the “elect” (and only the elect) instantly upon their conversion, and in such a way that there is absolutely nothing else to be done. This is the old “imputed righteousness” theology, which, when absolutized, negates the possibility that sanctification could have anything to do with justification (which is what the Scriptures clearly reveal). As a result, you lose the Sacraments in your theology, as well as many of the implications of “actual grace”.

As Dr. White has absolutized this particular doctrine to the detriment of all other scripture, he is either unwilling or unable to afford any credit to a contrary position (despite the overwhelming support for the contrary position amongst the early Church). As a result (and following in the steps of Martin Luther), Dr. White is subsequently a Sola Scriptura believer. This is a logical result, since when the evidence points overwhelmingly against you historically, but is only against you by a preponderance of the evidence in Scripture, you can still emphasize your supporting Scriptures in such a way as to make it appear that the preponderance of the evidence favors you. Once that is complete, the next step is to negate all other possible authorities (including the students of the Apostles), and wallah! you’re a Sola Scriptura believer who thinks the “Romish” Church is not even Christian (which is what Dr. White believes, BTW - just ask his Catholic-convert sister,** Patty Bonds**!).

I tried to dialog with him privately some time back, but he ignored all of the contrary Scripture I presented and only emphasized the weakest of my points for public discourse. Oh, well. I guess if you have a technique that works…

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Quick starter note, I am neither Catholic, nor Prodestant.

The council of nicea seemed to me to be a bunch of church leaders trying to keep together the doctrines of a church falling into apostasy. I think Constantine basically got everyone together, told them to agree on the doctrines so everyone could get on with it. (ie so he could have a politically dominating church again, without confusions.)

It seems that most of the doctrines were majority voted, and doctrinal choices were politically motivated. In my mind this discredits most of the doctrines that came from this council, which unfortunately seems to encompass some of the basic catholic beliefs.

Moving along, as the Church of Constantine crumbled, the Catholic church broke away and remained.

Question for catholics: If the prodestants are “apostate” because they broke away from you, are you “apostate” because you broke away from an apostisizing original church and based your belief of a bunch of politically motivated doctrinal choices? I’m not trying to start a heated bible bashing discussion, it is merely a question of a curious truth-seeker.
 
Shidoran,

This is the part where you cut the generalities and say, “Some of those politically motivated choices were…”.
Then, maybe, we can answer your question.

Was it, “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God”? “Homo-ousios”, so to speak?

Was it “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic”? Oh right, that was Chalcedon.

Notworthy

P.S. For a hint, you might want to look into Arianism. That is what was threatening to tear the Church apart, and would continue to endanger her for the next 100 or so years.
 
40.png
Shidoran:
Quick starter note, I am neither Catholic, nor Prodestant.

The council of nicea seemed to me to be a bunch of church leaders trying to keep together the doctrines of a church falling into apostasy. I think Constantine basically got everyone together, told them to agree on the doctrines so everyone could get on with it. (ie so he could have a politically dominating church again, without confusions.)

It seems that most of the doctrines were majority voted, and doctrinal choices were politically motivated. In my mind this discredits most of the doctrines that came from this council, which unfortunately seems to encompass some of the basic catholic beliefs.
Click to expand...

Why should it discredit them ? God works in all manner of ways - even through a lowly thing such as voting on doctrine. God is not powerless in the face of human activity - it is through human activity that He does His Will. Voting on doctrine is neithe more nor less reliable than if there had been no voting, because either way, we are faced with the fact that God uses human beings for His Glory. He used human beings to bring the Biblical texts into existence - the Spirit of God did not not write: men did.​

Moving along, as the Church of Constantine crumbled, the Catholic church broke away and remained.

Question for catholics: If the prodestants are “apostate” because they broke away from you, are you “apostate” because you broke away from an apostisizing original church and based your belief of a bunch of politically motivated doctrinal choices? I’m not trying to start a heated bible bashing discussion, it is merely a question of a curious truth-seeker.
Click to expand...

See above for answer 🙂​

 
An interesting note. In 449AD, Pope St. Leo the Great wrote the Tome of St. Leo, reaffirming the essential teaching of the Catholic Church: Christ as a diveine Person possessing both a divine nature and a human nature - “homo-ousios” or “True God and True Man”.

At the Council of Chalcedon, attended by over 600 bishops (most of them from the East, the heart of Arianism), the Roman legation read the Tome of St. Leo. When the Tome was read aloud, the members were reported to have cried out with virtually one voice: “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the apostles…” It’s important to note that, even though the Tome over-ruled the Eastern Bishops’ predominately Arian belief, they joined in the cheers, “It is Peter who says…”

This from One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - by Kenneth Whitehead

Notworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top