Posted on 05/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PDT by Destro
I'm not a pre-Tribber.
***what about SOSA SCRIPTURA?
the gospel according to sammy sosa***
I will pass that on to our departed (i.e. banned) Calvinist brother Wrigley who will appreciate your suggestion.
Nice dodge, but I am not going to let you get away with it :>)
Of course the Trinity is beyond HUMAN comprehension. That is not the issue. The issue was and is, where did the doctrine come from. It comes from the scriptures. That is where the basis of the creeds came from .
It merely states out-of-context phrases. These phrases can be read and interpreted in various ways. The fact remains that the word "Trinity" does not appear in any shape or form in the Bible and is therefore not biblical.
The word Bible does not appear in the bile either. That has nothing to do with anything.
All the heresies that sprang up in the early 2nd century and continued onward about the nature of Christ only testify to the confusion that existed among many believers as to the nature of God, even after the Bible was canonized.
To that I quote this scripture
1Cr 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
I believe that process is a credit to no man , but to the Holy Spirit. The fact that men returned and added books to the OT, proves again that men are fallible .
Those who assembled the Bible, so that you can now quote from it, knowing that it contains only true and inspired sources of knowledge, but by no means all there is to know, had to know that which is true and that which only appears true.
The scriptures converted long before they were assembled into one "book" . All the credit to the Holy Spirit that inspired them and protected them .
There were many, many "gospels" and various Gnostic and pagan works and other heresies. Somone had to distinguish betwen the heresy and the true teaching, accepting without a fail that which was orthodox and rejecting without a fail that which was not.
God knows the difference . He will protect His word for those that are His. That is not a work of men .
So why are you posting pre-trib articles?
Because the timing of the Rapture is less important than the acuality of the Rapture.
No need to add all that bogus stuff about pre-trib/mid-trib/pre-warth. No wonder folks are confused and look questionably at all these humanly-devised theories.
Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of Constantinople (381) affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded Creed, based on the Nicene but also adding significantly to it.HarleyD, you're misreading something here. The Orthodox never withdrew their support as a result of anything that occured at one of the Seven Councils. Please note that the Creed as quoted in your referenced article states that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The filioque would not come up as an issue for several centuries afterwards.Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit, a passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic treatise On the Holy Spirit, which had probably been finished some six years earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of the Church in the divinity of the Spirit by saying: "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets."
Catholics believe that "a saint is a saint is a saint" too. We honor all the Saints in Heaven, declared and undeclared, on All Saint's Day.
Thanks for making my point.
That is why councils help in sorting things out if doen right.
The biblical view is that the rapture and second coming are the same event. ---agreed.
As far as not withdrawing their support it seems each was excommunicating the other. Please consider:
”Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the Filioque in the West a blasphemy, and presented a substantial theological argument against the view of the Trinity which he believed it depicted.”
If they didn’t withdraw their support they sure had a nasty food fight. I doubt if you'll get an Eastern Orthodox to agree to the Nicene Creed as published by the RCC. (At least that was the case on this website.)
To get back on topic I only meant the Filioque in the Nicene Creed to serve as an illustration on how people can interpret either scriptures (or traditions) differently much like the “Rapture”. Perhaps I should have used "sola scriptura". :O)
For a Saint to be declared simply means that the Church recognizes him for his sanctity ... there is no difference between a declared Saint and an undeclared Saint. They are all part of Christ's church, "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people".
Actually, we are flexible on this. Our own Eastern Catholic Churches are not required to recite the filioque. It's really a matter of different conceptions of God, and differences in language. In a unification we would not require the Greeks to say it, and they would need to accept that we do.
SD
There is nothing in Scripture that would lead to such a distinction. That was my point.
No, that is what message boards are for. ;)
There is nothing in Scripture that would lead to such a distinction.
Nobody in Scripture is recognized for his sanctity?
Nobody in Scripture is supposed to serve as a role model for our own lives?
SD
To the point, Chiliasm (Premillennialism, etc.) was condemned as a heresy in 381 AD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.