|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 2/23/2008 3:49:36 AM
|
|
|
heavensmailman
Posts: 97
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
The trinity is very easy to under understand, but very hard to except for most people. The truth is, the Truth is hard to see. Isaiah-6:9 He said, "Go and tell this people: " ' Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing , but never perceiving.' Revelation-2:17 Jesus said: " To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/8/2008 7:51:59 AM
|
|
|
cajunhillbilly
Posts: 176
Joined: 5/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Don't you mean ACCEPT not EXCEPT?
_____________________________
"A Stargate. You know, kind of a ring thing. Comes with a dialer. You hit some symbols. The lights come on. It spins around. And then it flushes sideways" Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/8/2008 7:53:54 AM
|
|
|
cajunhillbilly
Posts: 176
Joined: 5/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Athanasian Creed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
_____________________________
"A Stargate. You know, kind of a ring thing. Comes with a dialer. You hit some symbols. The lights come on. It spins around. And then it flushes sideways" Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/8/2008 11:31:47 PM
|
|
|
heavensmailman
Posts: 97
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
1st Corinthians-8 :4 -6 We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth ( as indeed there are many "gods" and many " lords" ), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, FROM whom all things came and FOR whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and THROUGH whom we live.
Ephesians-4:6 One GOD and FATHER of ALL, who is over all and through all and in all.
Mark-15:34 Jesus said: " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
John-20:17 Jesus said: " I am returning to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God."
Revelation-3:2 Jesus said: " I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God."
Hebrews-1:8-9 ( 8 ) But about the Son he says, ( God our Father says ) ( 9 ) " God, your God has set you above your companions."
One GOD and FATHER of ALL.
Titus-2:1 Paul writes: " You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine."
Ephesians-1:17 Paul writes: " I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."
All this and more is what I believe.
The truth is hard to ( YES ) ACCEPT. Peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/9/2008 7:02:59 AM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 673
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1
heavensmailman, I get the idea that you do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. What do you do with John 1:1? (But I think it may be a violation of TOS if you argue forcefully against the doctrine of the Trinity, so you may need to be careful to not do that.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/9/2008 10:22:33 AM
|
|
|
cajunhillbilly
Posts: 176
Joined: 5/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Trinitarians believe in ONE God, not THREE. If you think otherwise, you obviously are not listeneing to what the Trinitarians are saying.
_____________________________
"A Stargate. You know, kind of a ring thing. Comes with a dialer. You hit some symbols. The lights come on. It spins around. And then it flushes sideways" Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/9/2008 12:26:34 PM
|
|
|
BeesKnees
Posts: 668
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, once it is established, Biblically, that God definitively tells us that His nature is to eternally be the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons of one being, in perfect unity as the one true God, then we can move on to assessing if what God has declared can be understood to be consistent with logic.
FigmentPez, this is one AMAZING post. Faith is faith, and we do not believe based on external evidence. But we can use the faculties we've been given, by God Himself, to meditate upon what He is telling us.
God bless you! You have NO IDEA how you've blessed ME today, I am sure...
< Message edited by BeesKnees -- 3/9/2008 12:43:50 PM >
_____________________________
Think!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/9/2008 8:17:33 PM
|
|
|
heavensmailman
Posts: 97
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
In my post #29, the only words that were mine were--All this and more is what I believe. And --The truth is hard to ( yes ) accept. I used except before and should have used accept. All the other words in # 29 came from God. I do believe all of God's word, and do not say that no one else does.
This is how I understand --John-1:1
Genesis-1:26 Then God said, " Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, ----"
Revelation-19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
John-20:28-29 Thomas said to him, " My Lord and my God !" Then Jesus told him, " Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
Does God our Father, call Jesus his Son God ? In Hebrews-1:9
Does Jesus our Lord, call God our Father his God ? In John-20:17 ect.
Does Paul say that God our Father, is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? In Ephesians-1:17
All these, Hebrews-1:9, John-20:17, Ephesians- 1:17 and more come from the written Word of God, His Bible.
Am I to understand? If I do or do not understand, am I not still to believe every word, because it comes from God our Father? Peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/9/2008 8:56:06 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 371
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Heresy is not thinking and imagining analogies and realizing we don't fully understand. Rather, heresy often comes from trying to fully explain to our own comprehension what we either can't understand or don't yet understand. It often comes from refusing to admit we don't understand something about God or what He has done and, instead, substituting for God and His work something simple which we can understand.
An excellent point. The idea that the reality of God can be fully realised by human understanding is the starting point for all heretical and false ideas about the nature of God.
quote:
The problem that I have with metaphors is that they're far too often the first resort in teaching trinitarian doctrine. You said you assume the Bible will be quoted heavily, but that is not a reasonable assumption to make, based on my experience. My experience in what most Christians know and have been taught about God's triune nature is that they've all been shown metaphors, and never been shown more than one or two verses that kinda-sorta hint at God's triune nature. Showing that there are examples of three-in-one is useless if we don't show what trinitarian doctrine is. Many who have just heard the metaphors still think that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just roles that a singular person plays at different times.
Another excellent point, I see where you are coming from now in your criticism of the use of metaphors.
quote:
What bothers me is that it seems Trinitarian doctrine is usually not taught at all, though some of the terms are used and may leave a false impression
I agree entirely. In fact, 20 plus years as a Christian, I have never had any direct teaching of the trinitarian doctrine from the church. This bothers me also.
Summary
1) Teaching of the trinitarian doctrine should start with scriptural analysis, to show that this is what scripture teaches.
2) Care should be taken to explain that our finite minds cannot fully understand or comprehend the nature of God, we only know of God that which He chooses to reveal of Himself.
3) With this in mind, analogies should be used with care. It needs to be understood that they are a representation, or a likeness, a tool which we can use to conceptualise, a help to our understanding.
Another idea for discussion - God has only provided the information (on His nature), that we can comprehend by our human capacity. An analogy of this is the RAM on my computer. Some programmes it will deal with easily, some with difficulty, and others not at all, it is a waste of time running them. So, although God provides some information, as much as we need, if He were to do a full data download, it would turn our tiny minds to mush.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/10/2008 10:01:27 AM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 203
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does God our Father, call Jesus his Son God ? In Hebrews-1:9
Do you mean Hebrews 1:8?
"But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.....""
_____________________________
"We count any belief in Him, even the smallest belief, better than any belief about Him." --from Robert Falconer, by George MacDonald
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/10/2008 10:25:54 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 175
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
While I agree with figmentPez in much of what is said, I beg to differ in this:
quote:
If you want to teach about the triune nature of God, why not start with scripture instead of man-made metaphors?
No one ever starts with just "scriptures"; every person is catechized by their church into the understanding of the bible before hand.
Scripture has to be interpreted before it can be understood.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation.." (2 Peter 1:20)
and
"as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16)
The proliferation of cults, sects and denominations has made clear that a simple "me and my bible" procedure only fragments and divides.
Besides, the word "Trinity" is found nowhere in the bible.
I propose, as a resolution to this dilemma, the earliest Christian creed: The Nicene Creed. It was given by the same people who determined the Canon. Therefore, it reflects most truly what Christian doctrine is.
Consider the principle of proximity: a person or thing is most assuredly known and understood by those people who are in the closest proximity to them (i.e. persons or things), physically and chronologically. Certainly not by those who are the remotest.
All churches have creeds (i.e. mission/doctrine statements), so it's futile to oppose them. In fact, opposition to creeds is a creed in itself.
And so, if the Nicene Creed isn't an adequate expression of Christian faith, then nothing is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/12/2008 6:26:57 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2660
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
While I agree with figmentPez in much of what is said, I beg to differ in this:
quote:
If you want to teach about the triune nature of God, why not start with scripture instead of man-made metaphors?
No one ever starts with just "scriptures"; every person is catechized by their church into the understanding of the bible before hand.
Scripture has to be interpreted before it can be understood.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation.." (2 Peter 1:20)
and
"as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16)
The proliferation of cults, sects and denominations has made clear that a simple "me and my bible" procedure only fragments and divides.
Besides, the word "Trinity" is found nowhere in the bible.
I propose, as a resolution to this dilemma, the earliest Christian creed: The Nicene Creed. It was given by the same people who determined the Canon. Therefore, it reflects most truly what Christian doctrine is.
Consider the principle of proximity: a person or thing is most assuredly known and understood by those people who are in the closest proximity to them (i.e. persons or things), physically and chronologically. Certainly not by those who are the remotest.
All churches have creeds (i.e. mission/doctrine statements), so it's futile to oppose them. In fact, opposition to creeds is a creed in itself.
And so, if the Nicene Creed isn't an adequate expression of Christian faith, then nothing is.
You have completely misunderstood my statement. I most certainly do not consider the ancient creeds to be man-made metaphors. In fact, I don't see very much, if any, metaphor in the creeds at all. The Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian creeds, in particular, are nothing like comparing God to the body, soul and spirit of man, or comparing God to an egg. If you read more of my posts on this forum, and on the subject of trinitarian doctrine in particular, you will find that I strongly defend the creeds as eloquently worded summations of scriptural doctrine.
In addition, I do not, nor have I ever, promoted the idea that scripture is to be studied by one's self. While I do believe that scripture is authoritative in a way that the creeds are not, and in a way that modern church leaders are not, I would never advise anyone to base their understanding of scripture solely on their own reading.
The creeds are wonderful, and very useful in understanding Christian doctrine. However, they do not hold the same authority that scripture does. The creeds are generally accurate summations of what can be found in scripture, but they are only true as far as that they say what scripture declares to be true. If a creed says something that is not to be found in scripture, then that creed is highly suspect. However, what is said in the Nicene creed, for example, can all be found in scripture. Many Christians don't realize this, but it is none-the-less true. In fact, studying the creeds without studying scripture can lead to grave error.
You bring up the absurd point that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. The word "benediction" isn't found in scripture, either, but many of the epistles end with a benediction just the same. It doesn't matter if the word isn't found, the concept is. Benediction means "good spoken" or "spoken blessings", roughly. That's an accurate description of what Paul and other NT authors put in their letters. Trinity, "tri (three) + untity" is an apt term to use for what scripture teaches us about the nature of God.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/12/2008 6:43:49 PM
|
|
|
AllForIsrael
Posts: 155
Joined: 3/1/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
quote:
ORIGINAL: ReelVerse.com
I want to make a video about the trinity and want to use a person as metaphor. I want to say that we have our flesh that wrestles against our soul. However, when we give our life to Christ we are born of the Spirit. So now we have our flesh, our soul and the spirit all trying to take control over our focus. Is this heresy?
Yes, it is heresy, because God is not a single person. Humans are not triune. Even if man is tripartite (body, soul and spirit) and not bipartite (body and spirit/soul), man is not triune because a man is not three persons. A man's body is not the son of his soul, as the Son really is the son of the Father.
If you want to teach about the triune nature of God, why not start with scripture instead of man-made metaphors?
Thank Martin Luther.........his doctrine was what Nazi Germany followed when they were slaughtering all the Jews....I would not give his doctrine the time of day.........
_____________________________
http://forensictheology.smfnew.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/17/2008 9:39:10 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4738
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
I have a couple of questions for Oneness believers... but to keep things flowing and to be fair in discussion.. I will start by asking a single one and then when we can move onto others.
If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we?"
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/17/2008 11:25:06 AM
|
|
|
captainfraulein
Posts: 527
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
...
St Patrick (one of my heroes) used a Shamrock as an example of the Trinity. The shamrock (clover) has three leaves/petals and yet is one plant. Once again, it's not completely accurate because it is using our finite world to describe an infinite reality. I can't remember who said it, but someone once described the Trinity as the "Infinite community of single action." That woud seem to be a fairly good description without writing a whole book.
Adam
When I was in juvy hall giving a lesson, one of the chaplaincy gave this exampe...God's 3 persons in one is like 3 prongs of a fork.
But yes, no example captures it all...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/18/2008 8:02:10 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 175
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
the creeds are wonderful, and very useful in understanding Christian doctrine. However, they do not hold the same authority that scripture does.
I'm not sure I understand you here:
Are you saying that the Nicene Creed is unbiblical? And if so, what statements are not also affirmed in the scriptures?
The Nicene Creed is the lens by which we view the scriptures. Or, if you prefer, some creed will be the lens by which you view the scriptures. The scripture offers no unambiguous understanding of itself. That's why I quote from the epistle's of St. Peter in this regard.
Again, I wasn't disagreeing with your analysis of the dis-analogies of created things with the Holy Trinity. My bone of contention was with "start from the scriptures" approach.
Heretics always start from the scriptures. The Orthodox resorted to formulating the Creed to both combat error and to edify/instruct followers in the true Faith. But it served primarily a Liturgical purpose. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 was lifted by St. Paul from an earlier, extant creedal formula, so it's futile to rebut creeds. Notice his way of treating it:
"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.."
The underlined parts are that very "creed" that St. Paul "received" and "delivered".
The Nicene Creed merely repeats this phrasing, with only minor alteration, when discussing Jesus Christ.
I guess my response is that your statements are out of sync with the historic Church. But frankly, Protestants, like Luther and Calvin, formulated their own creeds (i.e. Luther's "Greater Catechism" and Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion") by which they were aiming to guide the faithful in the true faith.
But neither Luther nor Calvin represent the historic faith as preserved in the Orthodox Church because they came 1500 years later.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 3/18/2008 8:16:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/18/2008 9:01:24 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1609
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
This is how I understand it;
God is pure spirit and without form. God is pure thought and knowledge with awareness of eternity.
God has a prefect image of Himself and because His desire is for the most holy and pure, by His Will He manifests that image of Perfect Self into the perfect image of Jesus Christ. This total understanding of Himself and how He relates to eternity comprises the Greek word eternal Logos. Christ, because He desires only the most holy and because of His love for God lets His Will then flow back to God. Thus you have the three parts of God; God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Gods Will) that enjoined the two.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/19/2008 5:46:29 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 175
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
God has a prefect image of Himself and because His desire is for the most holy and pure, by His Will He manifests that image of Perfect Self into the perfect image of Jesus Christ. This total understanding of Himself and how He relates to eternity comprises the Greek word eternal Logos. Christ, because He desires only the most holy and because of His love for God lets His Will then flow back to God. Thus you have the three parts of God; God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Gods Will) that enjoined the two.
God is not comprised of 3 parts; that's Tri-theism, not Trinitarianism.
My other point is that God created man in His image and after His likeness. Jesus Christ is that perfect image (Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3). However, God became man to restore man back to Godlikeness (Eph. 4:24; 1 Cor. 15:47-49, 2 Pet. 1:3,4)
There is only One God.
That One God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons, not three Things.
And so, the Creed helps to define what the Bible teaches about God and to exclude what it doesn't. This is the lens which has helped define what Orthodox Christianity is from all pretenders to the throne. Without the Creed, it is open season for heresy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/19/2008 6:29:29 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2660
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
quote:
the creeds are wonderful, and very useful in understanding Christian doctrine. However, they do not hold the same authority that scripture does.
I'm not sure I understand you here:
Are you saying that the Nicene Creed is unbiblical? And if so, what statements are not also affirmed in the scriptures?
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me? I have affirmed the accuracy of the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (among others). However, these creeds are not cannon! The truth in these creeds is not true simply because the creed declares it to be so.
If I were to say to you that "the Father is LORD, the Son is LORD and the Holy Spirit is LORD. Three persons of God, who are each, as well as all, the name above all names." Hopefully you would agree that this is true. However, it is not my authority that makes this true. My statements on doctrine are not authoritative. However, scripture does declare certain things to be true about the name of the LORD. Scripture is the authority, because it was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit by those who received their authority to write scripture from God.
quote:
The Nicene Creed is the lens by which we view the scriptures. Or, if you prefer, some creed will be the lens by which you view the scriptures. The scripture offers no unambiguous understanding of itself. That's why I quote from the epistle's of St. Peter in this regard.
Creeds offer no "unabiguous understanding" either. Many threads lately have shown grave (no pun intended) misunderstanding over the use of the word "hell" in the Apostle's creed. Creeds are just as open to misunderstanding as scripture is.
Also, if scripture doesn't offer understanding, then why do you quote it? If scripture is not useful for teaching, then why are you trying to teach with it? If creeds are superior in their ability to teach, then why didn't God give us only creeds to learn from instead of scripture which is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17) Scripture is enough to be equipped for every good work. The Nicene Creed is not part of scripture. It is not necessary for proper teaching, however well worded it may be.
quote:
Again, I wasn't disagreeing with your analysis of the dis-analogies of created things with the Holy Trinity. My bone of contention was with "start from the scriptures" approach.
Heretics always start from the scriptures.
Those who seek the truth start from the scriptures as well. The Bereans were praised for this (Acts 17:11). You're absolutely wrong that we should view scripture though the creeds, in fact, we should do the exact opposite. If someone brings us any teaching, we are to examine it in light of the scriptures to see if it is true. Just as the Bereans did.
Jesus was recognized as the Christ because of His fulfillment of prophecy, not because of any creed. It was through the study of scripture that Jesus was known for who He was. It does not matter how many religious leaders of the day studied scripture and did not recognize Him, because that does not change that God set forth prophecy about the coming Messiah for a purpose. That purpose was so that Jesus would be recognized as the Christ.
Scripture is not impotent, as you claim it is.
quote:
The Orthodox resorted to formulating the Creed to both combat error and to edify/instruct followers in the true Faith. But it served primarily a Liturgical purpose. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 was lifted by St. Paul from an earlier, extant creedal formula, so it's futile to rebut creeds. Notice his way of treating it:
"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.."
The underlined parts are that very "creed" that St. Paul "received" and "delivered".
Paul recieved teaching from the Apostles and from Jesus Christ Himself. He received his teaching from those with the authority to teach, the same who wrote scripture.
quote:
it's futile to rebut creeds
Any and all creeds? Does that include creeds of the Mormon church? The creeds of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Muslim creeds? Pagan creeds?
It is mot certainly not futile to rebut creeds in general, because not all creeds are true. If one examine the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds in light of scripture, they will find that they are true, because all that they say can be found in scripture. Indeed, if any creed declares something that scripture does not, then that creed is not to be trusted.
quote:
I guess my response is that your statements are out of sync with the historic Church.
My statements are perfectly in line with scripture. I don't know what "historic Church" you're talking about that doesn't hold to scripture being the greatest authority in written documents, but it's certainly not the Body of Christ that I am a part of.
quote:
And so, the Creed helps to define what the Bible teaches about God and to exclude what it doesn't. This is the lens which has helped define what Orthodox Christianity is from all pretenders to the throne. Without the Creed, it is open season for heresy.
Scritpure defines what scripture teaches about God, and what it doesn't. The various creeds of the church are no protection against all heresy. Nor are they absolutely necessary to reject the false teaching they do address. There is nothing in any creed that is true but cannot be proven from scripture.
If there is some point in any of the creeds that you think cannot be shown from scripture, then you are either ignorant of scripture, or you have a false creed.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/19/2008 6:35:45 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2660
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
God has a prefect image of Himself and because His desire is for the most holy and pure, by His Will He manifests that image of Perfect Self into the perfect image of Jesus Christ. This total understanding of Himself and how He relates to eternity comprises the Greek word eternal Logos. Christ, because He desires only the most holy and because of His love for God lets His Will then flow back to God. Thus you have the three parts of God; God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Gods Will) that enjoined the two.
Your understanding is not in line with scripture. The Son of God is not merely a manifestation of God. Any such understanding is contradictory to the declarations of scripture, and is in conflict with who the Bible declares the Son to be. The Word of God is also the Son of God, and is eternally the Son of God. The Son was not begotten at the incarnation, that is contrary to what scripture says about the nature of being begotten (each begets after it's own kind) and the nature of God (who does not change). Since the only begotten Son of God is God, He must eternally be God. Thus, the Son of God cannot be just God manifesting in the flesh.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/20/2008 12:34:53 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1609
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Hi figmentPez,
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/21/2008 12:08:18 AM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2660
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
Hi figmentPez,
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Have you examined this verse at all?
First, let us start with the relevant definitions of manifest and manifesation:
Manifest:
1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
3. to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.
manifestation
1. an act of manifesting.
2. the state of being manifested.
3. outward or perceptible indication; materialization:
God was indeed manifest in the flesh. God was made clear or evident to the eye because He became flesh. The incarnation of God was a manifestation of God, a way that God made Himself "readily perceived by the eye" However, the incarnation is not the only manifestation of God. In Exodus 3 you can read how God manifest Himself to Moses as a burning bush. In Luke 3:22 you can read about how the Holy Spirit manifest as a dove. In Acts 2 you can read about how the Holy Spirit manifest as tongues of fire.
What do all these manifestations have in common? These manifestations are God making Himself evident, they are not the very existence of God. God existed before showing Himself as a burning bush, and continues to exist afterwards. The Holy Spirit existed before manifesting as a dove or tongues of fire, and the Holy Spirit continues to exist even when not physically manifest. So, too, the Son of God existed before becoming incarnate, and continues to exist as God, though the Son retains His humanity as well.
We can, definitively, know that the Son existed before becoming incarnate. God tells us so.
Hebrews 1:8-10
8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." 10He also says, "In the beginning, O LORD, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
The Father tells us that the Son created all things in the beginning. The Father calls the Son "LORD", the name of God, thus telling us that it is in the Son's very nature to be. The Son can, and does, say of Himself "I AM WHO I AM", and we say of Him that HE IS. That is what it means to be the LORD. If the Son did not exist eternally, then the Son would not be LORD.
The Son is not just a flesh body, such a denial of the Son's inherent deity is heresy. The Son of God is God. When the Son of God became incarnate, He became the Son of Man as well as the Son of God, but His sonship, His being begotten of the Father, is eternal.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/21/2008 1:24:48 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1609
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
figmentPez
In my original statement I never suggested that the perfect image of God was a fleshly body and in fact I never suggested that the perfect image existed outside the thoughts of God. It seems that you have taken my concept and developed your own reality.
That being said and because we are both trying to describe something that we really don’t understand, I suggest we agree to drop the subject.
If you would like to explore this concept it was taken from a sermon by R.C. Sproul:
Link
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Heresy about Trinity? - 3/21/2008 1:29:02 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1609
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Sorry but that link does not seem to work. Sproul's home page is and the sermon is the "The Breath of Life".
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
