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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
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?
 
joe370 said:
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?

QUOTE]

I’m interested to see what other Protestants will say to this one. I would argue “no” because the binding nature of the Trinitarian dogma is not found in the authority of the council, but in it’s accurate expression of what the Bible teaches. Thus, the Bible is still the authority over the councils. It was still to be many years until the the church formally extended the Godhead to include the Holy Spirit (Constantinople) and the hypostatic union of Christ (Chalcedon). Those doctrines did not become binding only after these councils, but the councils were expressing truths laid down in scripture for many years prior. Had any of these councils erred in these doctrines (is that possible from the Catholic perspective?) and declared those errors binding on the church universal, God would still have preserved His remnant through the truth in His Word.

I also cringe to hear Arianism called Christian…

Let the pouncing commence! 😃
Click to expand...
 
I would argue “no” because the binding nature of the Trinitarian dogma is not found in the authority of the council, but in it’s accurate expression of what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but where do you get this conclusion? The Trinitarian dogma is based not only in the Scriptures, but in the faith passed down by the Apostles of Christ throughout the years. There is no historical evidence that the Trinitarian dogma is a direct result of the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.

With all due respect to your beliefs, the Trinitarian dogma IS found in the authority of the council and its accurate expression of what the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition have given us prior to this council.

The Scriptures do not define clearly the Trinity, in fact, the main reason to this day that I believe in the Trinity is because it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. That is what is so beautiful about being a Catholic, I can have faith in the Trinity because the Church says so. I do not need to sit there and argue about what the Greek says in John 1:1 like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can simply trust in the Church and to this day I find no reason not to. Every teaching that comes from the Church is not contrary to the Sacred Scriptures and that means that I can believe every teachings that comes from her. I trust in the Catholic Church because I trust in God who gave us the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, protecting her from teaching any error via the Magisterium.

Trust me, I know all the Scriptures that can defend the doctrine of the Trinity. But ultimately, it is because of the Church that we believe this, for if it were expressly because of the Scriptures, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, would not have been able to believe that Jesus Christ is not God.

The further we stray from the authority of the Catholic Church, the more we begin to distort the truth, ending up like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other non-Catholics who differ on core Christian beliefs like the nature of God in the Holy Trinity.

Here is Trinitarian teaching outside of the Council which come from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture passed down through the years following the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Irenaeus
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

See more here:
catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity
 
I appreciate your love for and commitment to the truth. This is an area in which we agree about the doctrine but may dispute the ultimate authority.

A few thoughts about your post:
  1. JW’s are easy to refute with the Bible alone. They’ve had to do some odd things with the Scriptures to hold to their beliefs.
  2. I agree with the quote you concluded with, but I would also argue that those things are taught in the Bible. We have confidence in those truths because they are taught in the Bible, not because Irenaeus stated it.
  3. What do we (Protestants) believe about the Trinity that cannot be shown in the Bible, but that we must rely on tradition alone for?
 
boastinjesus said:
I appreciate your love for and commitment to the truth. This is an area in which we agree about the doctrine but may dispute the ultimate authority.

A few thoughts about your post:
  1. JW’s are easy to refute with the Bible alone. They’ve had to do some odd things with the Scriptures to hold to their beliefs.
  2. I agree with the quote you concluded with, but I would also argue that those things are taught in the Bible. We have confidence in those truths because they are taught in the Bible, not because Irenaeus stated it.
  3. What do we (Protestants) believe about the Trinity that cannot be shown in the Bible, but that we must rely on tradition alone for?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stevin_Habba said:
I’m sorry, but where do you get this conclusion? The Trinitarian dogma is based not only in the Scriptures, but in the faith passed down by the Apostles of Christ throughout the years. There is no historical evidence that the Trinitarian dogma is a direct result of the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.

With all due respect to your beliefs, the Trinitarian dogma IS found in the authority of the council and its accurate expression of what the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition have given us prior to this council.

The Scriptures do not define clearly the Trinity, in fact, the main reason to this day that I believe in the Trinity is because it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. That is what is so beautiful about being a Catholic, I can have faith in the Trinity because the Church says so. I do not need to sit there and argue about what the Greek says in John 1:1 like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can simply trust in the Church and to this day I find no reason not to. Every teaching that comes from the Church is not contrary to the Sacred Scriptures and that means that I can believe every teachings that comes from her. I trust in the Catholic Church because I trust in God who gave us the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, protecting her from teaching any error via the Magisterium.

Trust me, I know all the Scriptures that can defend the doctrine of the Trinity. But ultimately, it is because of the Church that we believe this, for if it were expressly because of the Scriptures, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, would not have been able to believe that Jesus Christ is not God.

The further we stray from the authority of the Catholic Church, the more we begin to distort the truth, ending up like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other non-Catholics who differ on core Christian beliefs like the nature of God in the Holy Trinity.

Here is Trinitarian teaching outside of the Council which come from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture passed down through the years following the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Irenaeus
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

See more here:
catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity
Click to expand...
It’s nice to see another Chaldean Catholic on here. 🙂
 
Hey boast, how ya doing?🙂
boastinjesus said:
I appreciate your love for and commitment to the truth. This is an area in which we agree about the doctrine but may dispute the ultimate authority.
A few thoughts about your post:
Click to expand...
I agree that opinion of Irenaeus alone mattered naught. The CC defined the Trinity as God being three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as three distinct persons yet coexist in unity, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial… That the Son and the Holy spirit and that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one.

Where does scripture state that the Son and the Holy spirit are one and that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one? Perhaps I over looked it.

What was your answer to the following:

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.

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?
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
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?
Click to expand...
  • Correct, the essence of the trinity is not in scripture
  • It seems to be a construct to handle the desire to be monotheistic,
  • However, Jews, Muslims or any Atheist with a dictionary will not call the definition monotheistic.
  • Yup, we will always fail trying to articulate Mysteries of God
Now your question

The council was like a modern committee, that voted with majority rule. I don’t think any Committee decision is infallible. They represented who they represented, that was the extent of their right…
 
Tony888 said:
  • Correct, the essence of the trinity is not in scripture
  • It seems to be a construct to handle the desire to be monotheistic,
  • However, Jews, Muslims or any Atheist with a dictionary will not call the definition monotheistic.
  • Yup, we will always fail trying to articulate Mysteries of God
Now your question

The council was like a modern committee, that voted with majority rule. I don’t think any Committee decision is infallible. They represented who they represented, that was the extent of their right…
Click to expand...
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?
 
joe370 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why do you have 27 books in your New Testament?
 
boastinjesus said:
joe370;8449827:
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?
Click to expand...
QUOTE]

I’m interested to see what other Protestants will say to this one. I would argue “no” because the binding nature of the Trinitarian dogma is not found in the authority of the council, but in it’s accurate expression of what the Bible teaches. Thus, the Bible is still the authority over the councils. It was still to be many years until the the church formally extended the Godhead to include the Holy Spirit (Constantinople) and the hypostatic union of Christ (Chalcedon). Those doctrines did not become binding only after these councils, but the councils were expressing truths laid down in scripture for many years prior. Had any of these councils erred in these doctrines (is that possible from the Catholic perspective?) and declared those errors binding on the church universal, God would still have preserved His remnant through the truth in His Word.

I also cringe to hear Arianism called Christian…

Let the pouncing commence! 😃

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?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top