J
JMM1957
Guest
You think the bishops just decided this on their own when they weren’t getting revelations anymore? What does Scripture say about it? Surely they consulted Scripture.I do not think it a “communist plot.”* I saw the claim that the Nicene-Constantinople possessed a “thoroughly* scriptural basis.”* Having read in the past and recently historical accounts of the Council of Nicea by reputable scholars, I knew that the non-scriptural nature of Homoousian was specifically sited by some scholars.* Father Davis said there were 4 difficulties with Homoousian, “Fourthly and importantly for many of the more conservative bishops, the term was not scriptural.”
The thread started with questions about how LDS can be “not creedal” and yet have “The Articles of Faith.” Jane and I both responded that “The Articles of Faith” are scripture for LDS.* They are inspired from God.
One key difference we pointed to was that Catholic Creeds are not from scripture and are not inspired from God.* This is just true except when former Mormon’s try to present Catholicism as if it possesses Revelation for the purpose of leading the church, which of course it does not.
LDS like Christians during the 1st and 2nd centuries believe that God still leads His church by revelation.*** In the 3rd century Catholic Bishops, knowing that they did not receive revelation, declared that God no longer leads His church by revelation and there would not be any more until the second coming of Christ.*** This IMO was a mistake, but it was embraced by all of Christianity.
Stephen, you should not call me a liar.* I believe what I say here is true and I do not say it with the “intention to deceive.”
It is unfortunate that you and Rebecca call me a liar as some type of response to what I offer.* I think you should stop that.
Charity, TOm
How much public revelation was there between 2nd century and early 1800 that you are aware of?