Where do you see a “rejection of scriptural language”? I see plenty of Scriptural language, as well as a Greek term created for clarification.I think I should just say that I am not a) “sola scriptura” believer.
I also should say that the rejection of scriptural language does not make the Nicene definition in opposition to scripture. It is worth noting, but not some type of definitive point that means Nicea is a departure from pre-Nicene orthodoxy or that Nicea is not compatible with scripture.
Ok. So where does the Creed state that we are Light from Light with the Father or Jesus? We are called to reflect God’s Light.I did notice that “connection.” I find it very tenuous. Let me ask you to firm it up a bit.
Is the point that God the Father (presumably) is called light (1 John 1:5). God the Son is called light (John 1:4,9). Light is Light and thus God the Father and God the Son are the same nature, homoousian?
Are we not to be the LIGHT of the world?
The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from error here; the Church uses Scripture to back up the teaching, not prove it or defend it.I think calling the linkage of light to Father and Son (assuming 1 John 1:5 is unambiguously the Father) is barely worth being called a scriptural defense of “homoousian.” Have I missed the significance of this or misunderstood the connection? Do you think this is the type of exegesis we should use when we declare something is scriptural?
Knocking down lots of straw men.You are correct. Perhaps I should say the ONLY place I have currently found in the Bible that provides a strong indication of HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE is John 17:21. If you disagree why?
I might also say that John 17:21 makes a oneness predicated upon homoousian difficult.
Charity, TOm
Caiaphas would be wise to say that if he did not believe in the Divinity of Christ. I’m sure he said that about many other charlatans and pretend messiahs during his long tenure as High Priest. On the other hand, if one believe in Christ’s Divinity, Christ’s Church, the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, there is no new continued Revelation after Christ.Ciaphus might say, “Continued Revelation is ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not follow this Jesus Christ or those writers of “scripture” Peter, James, John, and Paul.”
They don’t say that in fact, since they hold their own councils.Or the Old Catholics I attended mass with 6-7 years ago might say, “Councils are ripe for cultish leadership and splinters, do not believe Vatican I.”
The SSPX does not say this either. I know nothing about the SSPV other than their sedevacantist views.The SSPX and SSPV might say the same about Vatican II.
Not Apostolic Christians.Humans do not like change, but God delivered revelation to His people during the Old Testament, during the New Testament, and as best I can tell Christians expected it to continue.
How is that relevant to our discussion? Dr. Bogdan Gabriel Bucur of Duquesne University has many scholarly writings on the position of this text among the Early Christians, if one wants to go to that tangent.Was the Vision of the Pastor of Hermas scripture? Irenaeus thought so.
Not quite. Tertullian stated no such thing.Was the revelation of the Montanist revelation? Tertullian thought so.
I submit that Ireneus who thought the Pastor of Hermas was scripture did not INTERPRET the Ephesians passages as you have. Same for Tertullian.
I have found no ECF before the 3rd century who believed as MODERN Catholics do concerning the completion of Revelation in Christ, meaning no “public revelation.”
“The need for prophets and revelation.” The trouble is recognizing the prophet when one comes along, and telling the difference between a true prophet and a false one. Can one come from the deserts of Arabia or maybe from the fields of America? Or perhaps the true prophet can only come from certain pre-recognized sources. I suppose for the LDS the prophet comes from within its ranks, and especially from particular members of the LDS hierarchy.I submit that Ireneus who thought the Pastor of Hermas was scripture did not INTERPRET the Ephesians passages as you have. Same for Tertullian.
I have found no ECF before the 3rd century who believed as MODERN Catholics do concerning the completion of Revelation in Christ, meaning no “public revelation.”
I believe revelation was largely absent (part of the Apostasy) when the explanation of why it was absent was created via human reasoning. What aside MODERN interpretation of ancient scripture do you have to support your view that the church understood revelation would end rather than that it did end within the circle of Catholic Bishops and they then struggled to explain why.
And I think Ephesians 4:11 points to the need for Prophets and Revelation.
LDS recognize the culmination in salvation history associated with Christ declaring, “it is finished” but recognizing God would continue to inspire scripture does not diminish the work done by Christ on the cross.
The fact that until the third century or later the people of God never taught God would lead without revelation is another place where I think the LDS position is incredibly strong.
If Peter can write inspired scripture and the Pope cannot, I submit Joseph Smith is more likely the successor of Peter than the Pius VIII.
Charity, TOm
Hence why a person asks God to testify of truth, and He will through the Spirit.The trouble is recognizing the prophet when one comes along, and telling the difference between a true prophet and a false one.
Ask God.Maybe, how do we know a prophet when we see him/her?
Well…we obviously did ask God and He said stay Catholic.Hence why a person asks God to testify of truth, and He will through the Spirit.
Ask God.
That’s more of the trouble. We have noticed that different people ask God and God gives them different answers.Hence why a person asks God to testify of truth, and He will through the Spirit.
Ask God.
And would you suggest that having a church negates a person’s responsibility to ask God?That’s more of the trouble. We have noticed that different people ask God and God gives them different answers.
The idea of asking God raises another difficulty. If we can ask God to testify of truth, we don’t need prophets! They are redundant. We can be prophets ourselves!
In fact, we then don’t need no church, neither.
If you can ask God, you don’t need no church.And would you suggest that having a church negates a person’s responsibility to ask God?
So, in your opinion, does having a church negate one’s responsibility to ask God or feel the Spirit?If you can ask God, you don’t need no church.
The job of the church is to provide true doctrine. A creed. So with a church one doesn’t need to ask God for that anymore. For other things, whatever they are, more personal, one certainly can ask God and feel the Spirit.So, in your opinion, does having a church negate one’s responsibility to ask God or feel the Spirit?
But then how do you know you’re following the right church, in your view?The job of the church is to provide true doctrine. A creed. So with a church one doesn’t need to ask God for that anymore. For other things, more personal, one certainly can ask God and feel the Spirit.
Indeed.But then how do you know you’re following the right church, in your view?
So your methodology is to appeal to history. So which of the churches claiming to be the historical first church do you go with: RCC, EO, OO, Coptic, etc? Furthermore, how do you know that this church is the largest “first” because of truth and no do to political maneuvering?Indeed.
By logic. Truth precedes error. Whatever Church that tells you about God to begin with.
Would you like to understand how other people see it?So the source of the teaching of God for us is the Roman Church. I don’t find much logic in the Mormon Church nor in its history, which is why I think Mormons put so much emphasis in their evangelizing on the “burning in the bosom” or conviction by the Spirit that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Mormon Church is true.
Mack gave a great answer. My answer is you just know. I was raised in one of those mainline protestant churches, actually one of the very early churches out of the reformation. As a kid I rarely missed church, Sunday school, or catechism. I continued to attend church as an young adult for a little while then stopped attending any services. Over the years I attended several churches from Episcopalian to a couple of charismatic denominations trying to find a church home. It always seemed as though something was missing, like is this all there is to it? Shouldn’t there be more? The sermons didn’t speak to me, as in a light turning on. It just seemed as though church is something we do for an hour on Sunday.But then how do you know you’re following the right church, in your view?
Methodology of history? Well, it seems odd to me to learn about a God, then appeal to that same God to ask him if he is a different type of God than you learned about to begin with. That’s what Mormons ask you to do.So your methodology is to appeal to history. So which of the churches claiming to be the historical first church do you go with: RCC, EO, OO, Coptic, etc? Furthermore, how do you know that this church is the largest “first” because of truth and no do to political maneuvering?
Would you like to understand how other people see it?
So you are RCC because by happenstance your ancestors lived in an area politically dominated by RCC, not due to any convection of the truthfulness? How about a person who by happenstance your ancestors lived in an area politically dominated by Islam, does that make Islam true? Or someone who happens to be Jewish ethnically?As far as the EO, et al, they are valid historically, but the EO did not evangelize my ancestors. The Roman Church did, so I,
There is a big difference between emotional response and listening to God.Ask for an emotional confirmation of it.
Speaking from my personal opinion-- I find history based arguments are extremely weak, and only proof of who was the big bully, not who was True. To find Truth, you should not rely on someone say “cause I told you so, cause X person told me so”-- there is too much room for error there. Rather, go straight to the source of Truth: God.That’s why in my opinion, the odd history of Mormonism is why the missionaries do not appeal to history and reasonableness, but to emotion or conviction of the Spirit, which is very subjective. But that’s just me. Maybe others see it differently.
Richard Lyman Bushman, a Mormon historian, said, a Mormon’s “testimony” is their empirical evidence.Methodology of history? Well, it seems odd to me to learn about a God, then appeal to that same God to ask him if he is a different type of God than you learned about to begin with. That’s what Mormons ask you to do.
As far as the EO, et al, they are valid historically, but the EO did not evangelize my ancestors. The Roman Church did, so I, and the Protestant reformers as well as subsequent Protestants (including Joseph Smith) can trace their belief in God historically to the Roman Church, not the EO.
How other people see it? What other people and see what? I have, of course, gone through the course with the Mormon missionaries (female missionaries, as a matter of fact) and you were to read the Book of Mormon, etc, then ask of God if it is true. Ask for an emotional confirmation of it. For me, the implausibility of the whole thing, historically unlikelyhood, prevented me from asking God seriously if it could be true. (Maybe that is what my problem was.)
That’s why in my opinion, the odd history of Mormonism is why the missionaries do not appeal to history and reasonableness, but to emotion or conviction of the Spirit, which is very subjective. But that’s just me. Maybe others see it differently.
You are saying that the Roman Catholic faith has spread throughout the world because they were a big bully?Speaking from my personal opinion-- I find history based arguments are extremely weak, and only proof of who was the big bully, not who was True. To find Truth, you should not rely on someone say “cause I told you so, cause X person told me so”-- there is too much room for error there. Rather, go straight to the source of Truth: God.
No, I’m saying that being large and politically powerful (which RCC historically is), is not evidence for Truthfulness.You are saying that the Roman Catholic faith has spread throughout the world because they were a big bully?
Please give an example of this.