Posted on 05/01/2009 10:31:49 PM PDT by Salvation
We ALL know that God is not a person. Hence, the clarification posted from the CCC.
They say that language is the worst form of communication because it fails to properly express what is in our hearts. This discussion is a good example.
I think the passage above sums up the whole issue very nicely. Thanks for posting.
**In this day where false teachings abound, I firmly believe that Christians need to be held more strongly to the contents of the Creeds.**
Agree.
The Nicene Creed is a poem? Outlandish!
Yaaaggghhhh!
Nice catch.
the creed is stated daily in every Catholic church.
So, how to you explain the Trinity without saying “Three persons in one God?”
Three ‘beings’ in one God?
Hmmm. Wondering.
Does someone have a Latin.Vulgate of the Creeds?
**(They were actively hostile to new members, and anti-American sermons were preached routinely by their South African pastor).**
Wow! Sounds like you ran into another Rev. Wright! Was Obama there? LOL! <sarc off
Thanks, NYer!
cute, but I do not worship ANY movies stars....only God.
To your point, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. An interesting problem arises, as many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject the creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine. How does St Simeon the Patient Reformed Church know that First Fundamental Independent Baptist Church of Christ Unified down the street is trinitarian and orthodox, if FFIBCoCU refuses to publish (or even write down on paper) their "what we believe" document, and also refuses to deny or affirm SStPRC's own "what we believe" document?
There is no simple way of determining whether some churches are "in the fold" of authentic Christianity or are apostate/heretical. We (the pro-creedal Christians) have to "take it on faith" that they (the anti-creedal Christians) are really our brothers in Christ. Now to some extent I'm exaggerating here in order to prove a point, but I think the question is a valid one.
I would never suggest that a creed is a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that creeds are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer, and continue to be smart tools for the churches' use today.
Only those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can be said to be "in agreement" doctrinally. By their very nature, creeds define what two or more groups' shared beliefs are, and they provide a useful way for both insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they really are doctrinally and congregationally unified.
There was no prohibition, real or implied, on Catholic representatives at the Constitutional convention of 1787. Daniel Carroll's presence there alone squashes the notion. I believe that there was one other Catholic there as well, though I don't recall his name. The only reason there were so few Catholic signers is that, at the time, there were proportionately few Catholics here. That's the only reason. Stop sounding like a Know Nothing Party member.
And there is another implication in your statement. Do you aver that it is more important to follow your country or to follow God first? God or country. You choose. Your statement seems to imply that sincere believers (in this case, Catholics) must bow to amorphous concepts of egalitarian politics ("the people") every time. I submit to you that that is a strange notion from the Christian POV. Indeed, it's that very mindset that has led to the collapse of our Christian heritage, insofar as people cave to the notion that we must subsume our convictions in the face of raw poll numbers on a host of moral issues these days. No. God comes first, then our fellow men! If you are any kind of Christian at all, how can you really take issue with this?
Are you saying John Wayne is not god?
Keep up the good work is my only comment. It’s just like the two extremes C.S. Lewis once pointed out with regard to Satan when he said the two biggest mistakes we make are to (1) give him all the credit (i.e. blame) and attribute all of our sins to him(ala Flip Wilson - “The Devil made me do it”) and (2) the deny he exists or think that he does not have a hand in many things. I was taught there are three things we struggle against, “the world, the flesh, and the devil” and I would say that intellectualism is certainly the flesh as our pride and our own sense of ego is often at the heart of our trying to assert our intellect over scripture. Meanwhile, we are to worship God with our “mind” so to be a silly-minded person that does not consider the scripture carefully in its context is, likewise, foolish.
Hey - you are doing a good job on here!
You do have some interesting points here.
“Catholics believe the same thing, even Protestant converts.”
I know, NYer, I know. I am not saying the Latin Church doesn’t have an orthodox belief in this regard. I am saying that the formerly Protestant preacher is either just plain wrong, or reverting to a Protestant mindset and vocabulary, neither of which are appropriate if one purports to be speaking the Truth as The Church knows it.
“So, how to you explain the Trinity without saying “Three persons in one God?”
Three ‘beings’ in one God?
Hmmm. Wondering.”
Easy, learn to understand the Creed in Greek, or Syriac/Arabic, or Church Slavonic, or Latin (without the filioque as is normative for catechesis). The whole “person” idea comes from the Latin “persona” which means more a “mask” than “person”. The word to use is “hypostasis”, which is used even in English, thus three hypostasia in one ousia. Theologically, these words are used when discussing the Trinity in most languages because they avoid the problem of anthropomorphism.
St. Patrick’s shamrock is pretty good, too!
You got me there. Need to look up this word!
anthropomorphism
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.