Biblical proof of something is clear. No misunderstanding that. Catholic dogma on the other hand is really problematic because it is only Catholics who accept them as truth. All Christians accept what is proven true in Scripture.
Well, first of all, the Nicene Creed isn’t exclusively Roman Catholic. Second of all, the tangible evidence you say is lacking is found proof positive in Scripture. Of course too, the Marian dogmas that we keep tossing around are not found in Scripture. This is a huge problem.
opcorn
While this is patently untrue, we were discussing the Apostles creed, were we not? This is an extrabiblical theological statement. Other extrabiblical dognas include the canon of scripture, which cannot be found in the bible, Trinity, worship on Sunday instead of Seventh day Sabbath, etc. etc.
It only seems to be a problem to those who have rejected the Apostolic Traditions. None of the communities founded by Apostles have a problem.
So it’s a majority vote … all who agree with this dogma raise their hand … the aye’s have it … it is accepted. Are you talking all … as in 100 percent or most … which is a majority … either way your statement does not hold.
Is that so? :coffeeread:
You have now simply resorted to playing word games. The Scriptures prove to Bible believing Christians that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins and was resurected from the dead and ascended to Heaven. Why does it provide proof, because God inspired the writings which make up Scripture and men with the guidance and discernment of the Holy Spirit compiled these writings. I certainly don’t call it false that you believe in these Christian truths too. Our disagreement lies upon what we accept as being part of apostolic succession. It also lies upon whether we proclaim anything with equal or higher authority than Scripture.
This isn’t a dogma. Jesus preached and it is written in Scripture. Jesus many many times referred to his own statement, “It Is Written”. This is not a dogma, it is the true Word of God.
I find this an interesting statement … the unbolded is accepted Christian belief but the 2nd I am trying to discern what you are really saying. Are you saying the body that finalized the Canon did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit … that both the writers and the body that compiled the Canon were both inspired.
I agree that Roman Catholics are not the only Christians that profess this creed. You’ll probably get mad at me, but there was only one Christian church at the time this creed was developed that had the authority to teach and combat heresy - we call it today the Roman Catholic Church. There’s a point to saying this besides starting peripheral arguments - everytime a non-Catholic Christian says the Nicene Creed, they are acknowledging that the authority of the Catholic church defined it for Christians. It all, once again, comes down to authority.
What about the truth that you said that existed outside of Scripture - is that proof too? If so, I will give you some documents outside of Scripture regarding Mary that I hold to be truth. Somehow, I don’t think you’ll buy the proof. If I believe “proof” that you don’t believe is “proof”, this must mean that the “proof” is subjective, which means it’s not really “proof” at all. Scripture was not intended as “proof” of anything, it’s part of our deposit of faith. Likewise, it is not a problem that Catholic beliefs on Mary are not explicitly found in Scripture because not everything that is truth is found in Scripture. I thought we agreed that this absence, in and of itself, does not disqualify doctrine from being truth. I’m starting to wonder if you really meant it when you said this back in post 73.
In case you didn’t yet get my drift, I think you are hurting your argument by using the word “proof”, and it’s the word that is causing us to talk past each other. Proof is a scientific term for being able to definitively validate something. We cannot sufficiently prove to a non-believer that God is the author of Scripture and not a man. We can tell a non-believer that we know that God is the author of Scripture via faith, but this is not the same as proof. At the same time, absence of scientific proof is not the same as disproof - we know God exists even if He can’t be proven in human terms. Correct me if you feel I’m wrong, but the word “proof” seems very problematic here.
I’m grateful we have this common ground from Scripture as Christians. But there’s so much more to being a Christian than reading Scripture and interpreting it for yourself.
And here I was thinking that you had blinders and earplugs on… I completely agree, this is where the issue is coming from.
All teachings that come with the authority of God should be given the same authority as that of Scripture. Teachings that are divinely inspired or guided cannot be in opposition to the written word of God in Scripture, so I think the central argument is still the authority of the church via apostolic succession.
I see what you mean but history does not agree. The early Church spread the Good News without a bible and without a Creed … nobody would have known what you were talking about if you said you were a Bible believing Christian if you lived in Palestine in the year 130 …they did not exist.
So, what does it matter? The Bible is the recorded happenings of the Early Church and what it did and practiced. It is the source that we have today. If you weren’t at the city council meeting, you look at the recorded minutes later. Sure they don’t say anything about the guy at the end of the table who coughed every 2 minutes, but it gives the meat and potatoes of what happened during the meeting and what is important to know. In 15 years, you can go back to those minutes to see if the law regarding autumn leaf curb-side pickup is actually on the books and was passed during the meeting and when exactly it was passed.
Let’s deal with your first statement here. When the Council of Nicea formed, the church was the Church, not the Roman Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox church or the Anglican church or any of those. You may argue that the Roman church has decended directly from the Early church or that Catholicism has evolved from the Early Church which was started and founded upon Christ and by Christ and that’s fine. But, the Nicene Creed came from the early Church and was produced to fight heresies of its time. Just for mention, I’ll bet your Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters would have much more of a problem with your statement than I did.
These aren’t city council notes … if you want to use your council analogy … make it applicable … take city council notes and pass them orally … make sure people understand and accept them … even though they can’t read them. 300 years later make it official … that is what was done.
My only pang here is that I would argue that the Catholic church is the church that was founded by Christ, not that it descended from or evolved from the church founded by Christ. But yes, otherwise I agree with everything here.
Good point, I didn’t intend to exclude the Eastern Orthodox church so that is a very good clarification. Both they and the Roman Catholic church were one in the same at the council of Nicea, so both sides of the schism have authority vested in the Nicene creed. Hopefully, they will be one in the same once again.
**Oh - it was the Catholic Church alright - t****he Roman Catholic Church. **
No, SIA, it is you that is playing word games. I told you that the word “proof” belongs to the realm of science, and that scripture is based on faith and creed, and does not lend itself to scientific proof. I asked you to define proof, and you said what “most Christians believe”. It has been pointed out to you that this definition is inadequate.
No, SIA. These are things you choose to believe, in faith, not by proof. They are not “proof” because you call your faith statements “proof”. You can’t “prove” there is a God, or that there is any such thing as “inspiration”. You can’t “prove” that these men had the guidance and discernment of any Holy Spirit.
No, but I believe there are ways other than science to apprehend Truth. I believe them because they were revealed by God, and I accept them in faith. Not because they can be “proven”.
That, and that we have a different understanding of science, revelation, and the revelation of truth.
Indeed! I hold highest Jesus HImself, the Cornerstone, and the foundation He laid with the Apostles and Prophets, from whence the NT was formed.
It matters because you seem to think that what those persons believed and taught suddenly ceased when they were written.
I agree, with the exception that the Catholic Church is not Roman.
I would like you to add another reference to your fine list, elvisman:
You are just ranting with alot of flawed logic here. I don’t care what you say, the Bible that we have today is a record of the history of Christ and what he taught and preached, the history and origin of the Early Church (Acts of the Apostles) and the Holy inspired Word of God written by Paul, James and others. This IS where the traditions are found and the truth is proven. Why do we need to continue to marinate in things that were not of the Early Church, not able to be proven except by saying that the RCC proclaims them so they are so and then worst of all, contrary to Scripture. Paul was clear in his letters to Timothy about Scripture and how we should deal with it. Jesus said numerous times when he preached, “It Is Written”. Stop fighting it and rebelling against it. Open up the Bible and read it with an unbiased heart and mind and let Jesus in.