S
- Status
S
Sulla
Guest
Oh, for God’s sake! Are you trying to tell us that this understanding of the nature of Christ is somewhere written in scripture? Please.
R
RedBert
Guest
you statement is so " out there" I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic.Or maybe I’m missing some hidden point
but 100%, absolutely . no doubt about it , obviously true!
this understanding of the nature of Christ is absolutely written in scripture!!!
Wow!! how incredibly sad that it can even be questioned
S
Sulla
Guest
OK. Let’s start with “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, one in being with the Father.”
Where might I find this formula in scripture?
R
RedBert
Guest
if the Bible verses offered at prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm are not sufficient : I can provide others.
But if you don’t see the truth that “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, one in being with the Father.” can be inferred, implied, deduced, or understood from below, then I suspect the issue may be with you.
*“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” -John 1:1
“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” -I John 1:5
“Then spake Jesus again unto them saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” -John 8:12
“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” -John 20:28
" And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." -I John 5:20
" I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” -Psalms 2:7
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” -Hebrews 1:5
“He who has seen me has seen the Father.” -John 14:9
being of one substance with the Father;
“I and my Father are one.” -John 10:30
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” -Isaiah 44:6
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” -Revelation 1:8
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” -Philippians 2:6
“But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” -John 10:38
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” -Colossians 2:9*
S
Sulla
Guest
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Arian controversy of the early Church. There, a whole bunch of very smart guys used a very large set of scriptures to support the opposite claim. Maybe you are smarter or more deeply read in scripture than Arius and the dozens of bishops who agreed with him. Perhaps you could get the better of some argument with a Visigoth bishop over the nature of the Son.
But perhaps more to the point, all your inferring, implying, deducing, or understanding only serves to make my point that these terms are nowhere found in scripture, any more than the specific terms like homoousion are. These are specifically the product of the Sacred Tradition and not scripture alone. And these are required for salvation.
But perhaps even more to the point, all of the other assertions of the gospel from Tradition that seem to cause you more trouble are also inferred, implied, deduced, or understood from scripture.
But perhaps more to the point, all your inferring, implying, deducing, or understanding only serves to make my point that these terms are nowhere found in scripture, any more than the specific terms like homoousion are. These are specifically the product of the Sacred Tradition and not scripture alone. And these are required for salvation.
But perhaps even more to the point, all of the other assertions of the gospel from Tradition that seem to cause you more trouble are also inferred, implied, deduced, or understood from scripture.
C
crazzeto
Guest
A Catholic (and learned Orthodox, shame on you Wolf for saying they answered this argument with 2 Tim 3:16) would then put this verse back into context:You do know this is the oldest arguments against it, right? And that many Protestant scholars have responded to it?It’s about as overused as the Protestant use of Matthew 15:3 against Catholics.
I think most Protestants would respond to this by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." In fact, it’s often used in defense of sola scriptura.
By doing this, we would note that St Paul is discussing specifically the old testament, there for if we want to “give the protestants 2 tim 3:16” as you seem to be trying to, then we should then request that all protistants who subscribe to this arguments kindly rip the whole of the New Testament from their bibles. Again, only if we say we accept that Paul is saying that only scripture is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, and only the scripture that Paul was talking about.
If on the other hand we 1) read this in context and 2) don’t add any words to the page. We’ll see that in fact all Paul was really saying, was that “yes, in fact the whole of scripture Old Testament and the Epistles I’m writing to remind y’all of the traditions I already taught you in person are in fact profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”, equally with the teaching we do in person.
S
schaick
Guest
Are yousaying that you believe that the Holy Bible supports the Arian beliefs so much so that a person can not discern the TRUTH that is the Trinity from it?
Arian belief = God the Father, was separate from and created the lesser Jesus, and that the Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father?
Jehovah Witness belief sounds a little bit like Arian.
R
RedBert
Guest
I am familiar with the Arian controversy.
And Jehovah Witnesses also use scripture to discount the Trinity.
That doesn’t mean the Nicene Creed is NOT based in the Bible.
It is the correct reading of scripture.
SATAN ( who is pretty smart ) also use scripture to temp Jesus:
Jesus replies with the correct understanding of Scripture
The Nicene Creed is 100 % scripturally backed up.
My posting was in response to this quote from you regarding the Nicene Creed
“Oh, for God’s sake! Are you trying to tell us that this understanding of the nature of Christ is somewhere written in scripture? Please.”
H
Holly3278
Guest
If sola scriptura is actually true, then how do those who advocate sola scriptura refute these verses which single handedly defeat the doctrine of sola scriptura?
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
(1 Corinthians 11:2 RSV) I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
Also, see this page for even more verses on sola scriptura:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
(1 Corinthians 11:2 RSV) I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
Also, see this page for even more verses on sola scriptura:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
R
RedBert
Guest
**you are mistaken in your understanding
Sola Scritpura does not say tradition can’t be used:**
From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
From NEWADVENT.org
Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit.
From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
S
schaick
Guest
Thank you for those 2 verses. See the traditions being discussed in these verses, traditions that the Jesus taught the disciples who were teaching their students.
Theses are not traditions added to as the centuries have passed.
Where are these traditions recorded? Do they have to do with our salvation? Wouldn’t all traditions needed for our salvation have been documented?
Define Sacred Tradition.
I found a definition of Sacred Tradition is this true?-
*Holy Tradition, for the Eastern Orthodox, is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky famously described the Tradition as “the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.”[5] It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.
The Eastern Orthodox churches does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed. Rather, Eastern Orthodox believers view Holy Tradition as being the faith which Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, without any development or deepening of understanding in the faith. The Catholic Church, too, views Holy Tradition as a passing down of that same Apostolic Faith, but holds that the Faith continues to deepen and develop over time, all the while staying the same; thus the doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the divine motherhood of Mary, and other central Catholic Christian doctrines were not fully defined until many years after Christ had ascended and the Apostles had died. A common metaphor used to explain this phenomenon is to think of a seed: over time, it grows into a tall oak, but its identity and essence is still the same.*
My issue is the ever expanding traditons that can not be backed up with Scripture- these are the man-made tradtions not traditions passed down by Paul, the disciples and their students.
You accuss JW, Mormons, etc. of misinterpreting the Holy Bible. I believe the Catholic Church has also on certain issues.
What I am trying to figure out- What I believe to be false, immacculate conception of Mary, Pope’s infallibilty, etc. do Catholics believe these to be necessary for salvation?
I do not because they are not mentioned in the Holy Bible and that is Sola Scriptura.
S
Sulla
Guest
I am saying two things.
First, scripture seems to be the kind of thing that smart people are able to disagree about. Jews, for example, simply do not accept that the OT prophecies were all about Jesus. If the rabbi of the local synagogue – who is deeply read and sincere – simply disagrees with the Christian viewpoint, what are we to make of that? I very much doubt that Arius was attempting to be a heretic; I think his honest reading of scripture brought him to a place where he ultimately (and only eventually) had to be condemned.
Second, the specific understanding of the Trinity – God from God, homoousion, and all the rest – really are the product of the theological reflection of the Church and are not (as my Jehovah’s Witness friends tirelessly point out) found in scipture. Maybe you think you could get to homoousion just by reading the Bible, but I’m pretty sure I couldn’t.
So, we are entirely depemdent on the working of the Church’s Tradition for our creedal understanding of the nature of Christ. Since I assert that that understanding is esential for salvation, I think I have shown Red Bert to be mistaken.
S
Sulla
Guest
Well, that is because you don’t accept the idea of Apostolic succession. If you thought that the sutdents of the students of Jesus were the valid carriers of the Tradition, yo might view the matter differently. But, if you think Jesus-St. John-St. Polycarp-St. Irenaeus provides a valid reason to think St. Irenaeus taught the valid Tradition of the Church, you might be similarly inclined to accept Peter-Linus-Cletus-Clement.
We have lots of documents.
They are necessary. And, as I point out below, the creedal undrstanding of the nature of Christ is not mentioned in the Bible, either.
S
schaick
Guest
Yes, but even after the fact, after concepts and ideas have been fleshed out and labeled there are still JW and Jews that don’t get it.
I think that will always be the case. Even in Jesus’ time some of the people thought He was blaspheming.
To win the argument though we need to prove that these concept do have Scripture validation. In the Scripture we see people worshipping Jesus and Him not correcting them. That He is the Alpha and Omega, the 'I am".
Ultimately who are the Jews and JW going to believe? Those that walked with Jesus or those many decades and even centuries removed?
I know that people don’t trust wikipaedia but check this out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian
See the part I emphasised-
“Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word “homoousios” in a Trinitarian context,[5] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son’s divinity lesser than the Father’s, since he even calls the Son a creature.[6] It was by Athanasius and the Nicene Synod that the Son was taken to have exactly the same nature or essence with the Father, and at the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father is.”
Did Origen miss this? Or was he simply not considering all of Scripture!:
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
…
30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’
John 5
18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 10
30I and the Father are one."
Philippians 2
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Sorry but I believe that Scripture **shouts **the concept of what we call Trinity.
S
Sulla
Guest
Well, let’s ignore the JWs for the time being, since they have never shown the slightest inclination toward serious thought. However, the Jewish tradition is quite rich – the OT is, after all, their scriptures.
But the observation that there exist arguments that convince you and me is hardly evidence in support of the contention that we would have convinced ourselves merely by our analysis of scripture. I don’t think I am being controversial here.
OK. So you would have hit on the whole homoousion thing on your own, I guess.
S
schaick
Guest
I understand what you are saying and we will never truly know.
Is this where the Holy Spirit comes in?
When I was a kid we had a Jewish couple convert and join our church- wished I had picked their brain on the subject!!
S
Sulla
Guest
I think this is exactly where Holy Spirit comes in.
- Status