Question for non-Catholics: if then why not now...?

[ciero]

So it could have been a fallible decision leading to a fallible doctrine embrace by almost all Christians today???

Also, you do not believe that it was binding on the entire church universal at the time it was defined by the CC?

I would not accept the word of a mormon…the new non trinitarian “christians”…

 

[joe370]

boastinjesus;8451679:

Can you tell me where in scripture it explicitly says “God is composed of three separate persons, but one essence,” and “Jesus was fully God and fully man”? I know that John chapter one says that Jesus was in the beginning with God and that all things were made through him. But that doesn’t explain fully the idea of the trinity; also can you tell me where specifically in scripture the Holy Spirit is said to be God as well, or at least a person of the trinity? How do you know that the Holy Spirit is not just another spirit separate from God which God commands to do things?

Exactly.

 

[boastinjesus]

boastinjesus;8451679:

1. Can you tell me where in scripture it explicitly says “God is composed of three separate persons, but one essence,” and “Jesus was fully God and fully man”? I know that John chapter one says that Jesus was in the beginning with God and that all things were made through him. But that doesn’t explain fully the idea of the trinity;
2. also can you tell me where specifically in scripture the Holy Spirit is said to be God as well, or at least a person of the trinity? How do you know that the Holy Spirit is not just another spirit separate from God which God commands to do things?

I have added numbers and spacing to your original post to hopefully make my response clearer. Forgive me if thats a breach in protocol.

1. Doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture:

What is clear is that there is only one true God: ** Deuteronomy 6:4** “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one…”

In the Old Testament, we get glimpses of the plurality of the Godhead:
** Gen. 1:2** references the “Spirit of God”, and from the New Testament we know that all things were created through Christ (Col. 1:16), so creation itself involved all three persons of the Godhead.
**Genesis 1:26 ** Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

Christ is God:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."

Fully God: in His eternality, and perfection.
Fully Man: in the flesh, hungered, thirsted, was weary,

1. The Holy Spirit is God:
   Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit … You have not lied to men but to God.”
   **Hebrews 9:14 ** how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
   (States the Holy Spirit has the divine attribute of being eternal. This verse is a beautiful description of the Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity, as well)
   1 Corinthians 2:11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
   (distinction of personality, yet unity of being or Godhead)

Again, we affirm what those councils taught because they accurately reflect what the Bible teaches.

 

[lyrikal]

What do you (Protestants) believe about the Canon of Scripture that CAN be shown in the Bible that you do not need to rely on Tradition/Councils for?

What do you (Protestants) believe about Christ having two wills that CAN be shown in the Bible that you do not need to rely on Tradition/Councils for?

BoastinJesus, how about these two councils?

 

[boastinjesus]

What do you (Protestants) believe about the Canon of Scripture that CAN be shown in the Bible that you do not need to rely on Tradition/Councils for?

I’m not sure what you mean about Christ’s two wills, so I’ll respond to the first question.

Remember first of all that while we believe that the Bible is the highest authority, no protestant would hold that it is the only source of truth. If I’m going to fix my car or have heart surgery, I’m relying upon truth learned outside of Scripture. The Bible does not contain all the truth that is to be known, but is the highest authority in what it addresses, so if evolution and the Bible contradict, we follow the Bible.

Having said that, because the church recognized the canon, does not mean that it created the canon. Is it not possible for me to come to the same conclusion as the council? Did they not have a criteria that they were basing the decisions upon? We can reject the gnostic gospels and pseudopigraphal writings on evaluation by the same criteria.

I’m trying to think of an example to illustrate. Here’s the best I can come up with, granted it has problems. If there is one group of math students working on a problem (council), and then let’s say there are two more individuals working on the problem by themselves, independently. Now let’s assume the group gets the right answer, and only one of the individuals also gets the correct answer. First of all, does the fact that someone else got it wrong negate the truth or mathematical principles? Of course not, so just because many protestants get things wrong doesn’t mean everyone is wrong (there have been schizms within church tradition as well…). Secondly, just because the individual got it right, does not mean that he had to just copy or rely upon the groups work (even if they use the same principles). Couldn’t he have used the same laws of mathematics, logic, etc. to come up with the same answer?

We would hold that they gave the right answer, but not just because they said so (based on their own inherent authority), but because they recognized God’s preserving of His word for us.

Sorry that’s so convoluted. I hope I’ve clarified the position from our perspective at least a little…

 

[JonNC]

Historical fact: The Catholic Church via the ecumenical council of Nicaea, formally, authoritatively and infallibly defined the Trinitarian dogma which is accepted by almost all non-Catholics today.

There were many 4th century Christians that embraced Non-trinitarianism, (such as Arianism) - that adamantly disagreed with the findings and decrees propounded and eventually decreed by the 4th century Catholic Church Council because they believed, as do sola scriptura proponents today, that scripture took supreme precedence over any and all Catholic Church councils and creeds.

Reasons they gave for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity:

It is not mentioned in the scripture.
It does not make philosophical sense.
It is not compatible with monotheism.
It is not necessary in order to explain the uniqueness of Jesus.

My question:

**Did the 4th century Catholic Church leadership that formally, authoritatively and infallibly defined the Trinitarian dogma, in actuality possess the right to formally, authoritatively and infallibly define the Trinitarian dogma, and make it binding on the church universal? **

If then why not now?

Hi Joe,
I’ll leave the infallibility part out, but on the right and authority, as it was a council of the whole Church - all the Patriarchs - a resounding yes!

Jon

 

[lyrikal]

I’m not sure what you mean about Christ’s two wills, so I’ll respond to the first question.

Council of Constantinople III declared that Christ has two wills (one Divine and one human).

Remember first of all that while we believe that the Bible is the highest authority, no protestant would hold that it is the only source of truth.

I highly doubt that “no Protestant would hold that it is the only source of truth.” Protestants can’t even agree on what Sola Scriptura even means.

If I’m going to fix my car or have heart surgery, I’m relying upon truth learned outside of Scripture.

I’m referring to truth with regards to the Christian Faith.

The Bible does not contain all the truth that is to be known, but is the highest authority in what it addresses, so if evolution and the Bible contradict, we follow the Bible.

Let me give you the Catholic side. As Catholics, we believe the Bible is the WRITTEN Word of God; however, we don’t believe that everything was written down. We believe some things were passed down orally as well (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Thess 2:13). The things that were passed down orally are ALSO the Word of God. So now we have two things:

1.) The written Word of God (Bible)
2.) The oral Word of God (Tradition)

If one says “the Bible (written) Word of God is the highest authority” then what one is saying is “the written Word of God is more authoritative than the oral Word of God.” In other words, the Word of God is more authoritative than the Word of God. That makes absolutely no sense. There isn’t one higher than the other. They complement each other and help us understand what each source is saying. Without Tradition, the Bible is hard to interpret accurately (and I would say impossible). Likewise, without the Bible, Tradition would be hard to interpret accurately.

Since we have two sources that we believe to be the Word of God (and Scripture recognizes them as the Word of God in 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Thess 2:13) then we now need an interpreter to these sources. Not merely human interpreter, but one that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is what we call the Magesterium. This is where the councils are held and where the Bishops have authority due to their Apostolic Succession. These councils, we believe, are inspired by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15, Matthew 18) and we believe that there is one who has primacy over all (Matthew 16).

With all that said, please understand that when someone says something like “We regard other sources to be useful but the Bible is the most useful and the Bible is the most authoritative” then here is where the problem lies:

IF these other sources have things that are not found in the Bible, are they still binding on all Christians? For example, Christ having two wills is no where to be found in the Bible. This is something a council proclaimed in the late 7th century. Is this something that you believe? If so, where can I find “Christ having two wills” in the Bible? It’s no where to be found. Also, Canon of Scripture is also no where to be found in the Bible. So I must go outside the Bible in order to know more truths that are necessary for my salvation (such as the canon of Scripture).

Having said that, because the church recognized the canon, does not mean that it created the canon.

The Holy Spirit “created” the Canon and inspired the Church to proclaim this canon. The Holy Spirit is at work in the councils and that is why they cannot err (the Ecumenical ones).

Is it not possible for me to come to the same conclusion as the council?

Sure it’s possible. Is it also not possible that you would come up with a different conclusion as the council? How would we know who is right? You recognize the council of Nicea in 325 AD because it proclaims the Trinity, right? But have you read every single thing in that canon? There are things on there that you may not agree with. So what you have done is, you have made yourself the final authority and you are now above the councils. Do you see the problem with “coming up with the same conclusion on your own”? The councils are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they cannot err. They are binding on Christians because (just like the Bible) it is the Holy Spirit that inspired the councils and men (bishops) who are the instruments. People tend to forget that this is the way the Holy Spirit usually works.

1.) Bible: Penned by men, inspired by the HS.
2.) Jesus: 100% man and 100% God
3.) Councils: Held by men (Bishops) and inspired by the HS
4.) Traditions: Spoken by Jesus (God) and continued by men (Bishops).

God is not going to rely on our fallible minds to come up with a doctrine. He started a Church so that He can communicate His truth to the successors of the Apostles so that us laymen can know the truth at all times without coming up with educated guesses. See Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. Also see:

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

-1 Timothy 3:15.

The early Church Fathers recognized the Church as a visible establishment as well as an invisible one. They all agree that in order to be in the actual Church, one must be obedient to the Bishop. Some even went as far as saying that in order to be in the actual Church, one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I’d be more than happy to provide you these references if you’d like.

 

[lyrikal]

Did they not have a criteria that they were basing the decisions upon? We can reject the gnostic gospels and pseudopigraphal writings on evaluation by the same criteria.

Who came up with this criteria?

I’m trying to think of an example to illustrate. Here’s the best I can come up with, granted it has problems. If there is one group of math students working on a problem (council), and then let’s say there are two more individuals working on the problem by themselves, independently. Now let’s assume the group gets the right answer, and only one of the individuals also gets the correct answer. First of all, does the fact that someone else got it wrong negate the truth or mathematical principles? Of course not, so just because many protestants get things wrong doesn’t mean everyone is wrong (there have been schizms within church tradition as well…). Secondly, just because the individual got it right, does not mean that he had to just copy or rely upon the groups work (even if they use the same principles). Couldn’t he have used the same laws of mathematics, logic, etc. to come up with the same answer?

We would hold that they gave the right answer, but not just because they said so (based on their own inherent authority), but because they recognized God’s preserving of His word for us.

With all due respect, this argument fails. Are you aware that the first Christian councils chose 73 books and not 66? Therefore, you did not come up with the same answer as the first Christians. So you have 66 and we have 73 (which is what the first Councils chose). We go by the councils and you go by private interpretation and private judgement. Who is right? Who should I trust? The Earliest Christians who were closest to the Apostles, who defined the Trinity, who passed on the faith, or…you? Why should my Bible have 66 books and not 73? Why should yours?

There must be an authority established here on earth to preserve the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Sorry that’s so convoluted. I hope I’ve clarified the position from our perspective at least a little…

No worries. I hope I’ve clarified the position from the Catholic perspective and shown why the Protestant one(s) are unbiblical and unhistorical.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
I’ll leave the infallibility part out, but on the right and authority, as it was a council of the whole Church - all the Patriarchs - a resounding yes!

Jon

We know the 4th century Catholic Church leadership didn’t fallibly define the Trinitarian dogma - right?

 

[JonNC]

We know the 4th century Catholic Church leadership didn’t fallibly define the Trinitarian dogma - right?

Certainly, the doctrine of the Trinity is in keeping with scripture. So, while they are accurate in there determination, it is doctrine in that it reflects scripture, not necessarily because it was a council of the Bishops of the whole Church. Authoritative for the Church? Sure.

Jon

 

[jericho777]

Historical fact: The Catholic Church via the ecumenical council of Nicaea, formally, authoritatively and infallibly defined the Trinitarian dogma which is accepted by almost all non-Catholics today.

There were many 4th century Christians that embraced Non-trinitarianism, (such as Arianism) - that adamantly disagreed with the findings and decrees propounded and eventually decreed by the 4th century Catholic Church Council because they believed, as do sola scriptura proponents today, that scripture took supreme precedence over any and all Catholic Church councils and creeds.

Reasons they gave for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity:

It is not mentioned in the scripture.
It does not make philosophical sense.
It is not compatible with monotheism.
It is not necessary in order to explain the uniqueness of Jesus.

My question:

Did the 4th century Catholic Church leadership that formally, authoritatively and infallibly defined the Trinitarian dogma, in actuality possess the right to formally, authoritatively and infallibly define the Trinitarian dogma, and make it binding on the church universal?

If then why not now?

In Genesis 1:1 the frame work for the Trinity was laid. The word for God is in the plural form and incidentally it is also the third word in the Hebrew text. To Jews word position has meaning. Also Dt 6:4 “Hear O Israel the LORD our God the LORD is one. God is defined as plural and yet as one at the same time.

 

[lyrikal]

In Genesis 1:1 the frame work for the Trinity was laid. The word for God is in the plural form and incidentally it is also the third word in the Hebrew text. To Jews word position has meaning. Also Dt 6:4 “Hear O Israel the LORD our God the LORD is one. God is defined as plural and yet as one at the same time.

But that doesn’t spell out the Trinity which says “God is 3 Persons in 1. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These 3 are not 3 Gods but 3 Persons in 1 God.”

 

[joe370]

Certainly, the doctrine of the Trinity is in keeping with scripture. So, while they are accurate in there determination, it is doctrine in that it reflects scripture, not necessarily because it was a council of the Bishops of the whole Church. Authoritative for the Church? Sure.

Jon

That certainly seems reasonable, but we have to remember that Arius also thought that his views, regarding the matter, were truly in keeping, and reflected, scripture, and that the council of the Bishops of the whole Church were ones that got it wrong.

Both the CC and the camp of Arius claimed that their take on the dogma was in keeping with scripture; both claimed that their view was a true reflection of scripture. If it is in fact a doctrine only in that it reflects scripture and not necessarily because it was a council of the Bishops of the whole Church that defined it, then how do we know that the view that Arius put forth to the CC, wasn’t in keeping with scripture?

 

[joe370]

In Genesis 1:1 the frame work for the Trinity was laid. The word for God is in the plural form and incidentally it is also the third word in the Hebrew text. To Jews word position has meaning. Also Dt 6:4 “Hear O Israel the LORD our God the LORD is one. God is defined as plural and yet as one at the same time.

You believe that the preceding supports the Trinitarian dogma that claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are one? Plural form does not suggest oneness.

I don’t think Eutychianism and Monophysitism thought it was so clearly laid out in Genesis 1. Many argued over Jesus’ 2 natures which was why Pope St. Leo I in his famous Tome to Flavian, declared that the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures—one divine and one human.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[JonNC]

That certainly seems reasonable, but we have to remember that Arius also thought that his views, regarding the matter, were truly in keeping, and reflected, scripture, and that the council of the Bishops of the whole Church were ones that got it wrong.

Both the CC and the camp of Arius claimed that their take on the dogma was in keeping with scripture; both claimed that their view was a true reflection of scripture. If it is in fact a doctrine only in that it reflects scripture and not necessarily because it was a council of the Bishops of the whole Church that defined it, then how do we know that the view that Arius put forth to the CC, wasn’t in keeping with scripture?

That’s why I said its authoritative. Arius said, “if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing.” This clearly contradicts John 1:1.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You believe that the preceding supports the Trinitarian dogma that claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are one? Plural form does not suggest oneness.

I don’t think Eutychianism and Monophysitism thought it was so clearly laid out in Genesis 1. Many argued over Jesus’ 2 natures which was why Pope St. Leo I in his famous Tome to Flavian, declared that the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures—one divine and one human.

Your thoughts friend?

It is certainly well laid out, however, at Christ’s baptism.

Jon

 

[joe370]

It is certainly well laid out, however, at Christ’s baptism.

Jon

Well, perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t find anything in the bible that claims that the father and the holy spirit are one or that the son and the HS are one.

"…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…comes real close but it doesn’t tell us that the three are one.

I of course agree with you that the Council of Nicea merely recognized what the Bible taught regarding the God-head, and systematized the doctrine, when others, like Arius, were denying it.

Jon, sorry about that; somehow I overlooked the following: “Authoritative for the Church? Sure”

 

[jericho777]

But that doesn’t spell out the Trinity which says “God is 3 Persons in 1. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These 3 are not 3 Gods but 3 Persons in 1 God.”

You are absolutely correct but it lays the foundation for it though.

 

[jericho777]

You believe that the preceding supports the Trinitarian dogma that claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are one? Plural form does not suggest oneness.

I don’t think Eutychianism and Monophysitism thought it was so clearly laid out in Genesis 1. Many argued over Jesus’ 2 natures which was why Pope St. Leo I in his famous Tome to Flavian, declared that the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures—one divine and one human.

Your thoughts friend?

No I believe it sets the stage for it right from the beginning. Though not conclusive by any means it is telling in Gen 1:1 that God is in the plural form and the third word of the text. That’s all.

 

[joe370]

No I believe it sets the stage for it right from the beginning. Though not conclusive by any means it is telling in Gen 1:1 that God is in the plural form and the third word of the text. That’s all.