Posted on 07/21/2009 10:09:01 AM PDT by NYer
Yes, there are. And from time to time I will get into them and study them for awhile.
But as I have no formal training in these areas, I have got to admit that that the terminology escapes me after a short time. Still, I’ve done enough to know what I believe, and have a fair concept of why I believe it. Even if that final reason is just a leap of faith.
Fortunately, I think, one does not have to be a theological expert to receive salvation. One just has to seek it through Christ.
In the final analysis, I am mostly a Calvinist, although I believe in free will far more than in predestination. Although I do believe an omniscient God knows whether or not you will be saved.
No, I can’t agree to that
The Catholic Church uses the Nicene and Apostles Creed. I have never heard of the Athenesian Creed.
Try looking up the Athenasian Creed in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's one of the basic statements of the Catholic (and the catholic) faith.
From newadvent.com:
One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy, is a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, with a passing reference to several other dogmas. Unlike most of the other creeds, or symbols, it deals almost exclusively with these two fundamental truths, which it states and restates in terse and varied forms so as to bring out unmistakably the trinity of the Persons of God, and the twofold nature in the one Divine Person of Jesus Christ. At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down. The following is the Marquess of Bute’s English translation of the text of the Creed:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
For the past two hundred years the authorship of this summary of Catholic Faith and the time of its appearance have furnished an interesting problem to ecclesiastical antiquarians. Until the seventeenth century, the “Quicunque vult”, as it is sometimes called, from its opening words, was thought to be the composition of the great Archbishop of Alexandria whose name it bears. In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his “De Tribus Symbolis”, gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following:
firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and
secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin.
Most modern scholars agree in admitting the strength of these reasons, and hence this view is the one generally received today. Whether the Creed can be ascribed to St. Athanasius or not, and most probably it cannot, it undoubtedly owes it existence to Athanasian influences, for the expressions and doctrinal colouring exhibit too marked a correspondence, in subject-matter and in phraseology, with the literature of the latter half of the fourth century and especially with the writings of the saint, to be merely accidental. These internal evidences seem to justify the conclusion that it grew out of several provincial synods, chiefly that of Alexandria, held about the year 361, and presided over by St. Athanasius. It should be said, however, that these arguments have failed to shake the conviction of some Catholic authors, who refuse to give it an earlier origin than the fifth century.
Different rites use the Creeds for different purposes. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04479a.htm gives the common uses according to rite.
The most common one is the Nicene, ratified at the 325 AD Ecumenical Nicene Council by the whole Church and the modern version by the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Absolutely none.
***On what part of the Athenesian Creed do you think orthodox Lutherans and Catholics disagree?
Absolutely none.***
Hmmm. One might enquire as to the understanding of the Catholic Faith that the orthodox Lutherans understand. I suspect that it differs slightly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which defines the Faith.
OTOH, one might inquire as to the RC understanding of the AC as it relates to church “tradition”.
JDDJ was and is a an agreement to heresy.
***OTOH, one might inquire as to the RC understanding of the AC as it relates to church “tradition”.***
The Athenasian Creed was probably the product of at least a hundred years of praying, research and debate. And agreement. All of the Creeds were the response to a specific heresy; thus they do no encompass all the Faith, yet, they are required in completion. As well as the rest of the Faith.
***JDDJ was and is a an agreement to heresy.***
Drawing a sudden blank here.
Isn't that like saying "I wouldn't buy into the Democrat stimulus if Obama did not move me to do so."?
The author is too clueless about Scripture to merit a reply.
This is drivel.
“Private interpretation of the bible directly led to the “living document” approach to the Constitution.”
Having watched some Catholics interpret Scripture to make it accord with what they WANT it to say, I’d have to say the Catholic Church has plenty of Ruth Baders in it!
Interpreting Scripture isn’t hard if you read the text. If you need for the text to say things it doesn’t, then you need a Magisterium to tell you what it says.
And no, Rome did not make scripture scripture, the churches did by common assent - 300 years later. Local councils ratified what their churches already believed. Remember, it took 1500 years for a formal declaration from the Catholic Church about what was scripture, and what was not.
***I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.
Isn’t that like saying “I wouldn’t buy into the Democrat stimulus if Obama did not move me to do so.”?***
Actually, this is a quote from St. Augustine.
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).
Augustine, in debating Mani, wrote this. So, no. St. Augustine, inspired by God, wrote this. St. Augustine, at other times wandered from the Church into heresy and yet came back, left and came back again.
His Retractions are particularly interesting.
***“Private interpretation of the bible directly led to the “living document” approach to the Constitution.”
Having watched some Catholics interpret Scripture to make it accord with what they WANT it to say, I’d have to say the Catholic Church has plenty of Ruth Baders in it!***
Are any of them in the teaching authority of the Church?
Much more accurate.
***Interpreting Scripture isn’t hard if you read the text. If you need for the text to say things it doesn’t, then you need a Magisterium to tell you what it says.
And no, Rome did not make scripture scripture, the churches did by common assent - 300 years later. Local councils ratified what their churches already believed. Remember, it took 1500 years for a formal declaration from the Catholic Church about what was scripture, and what was not.***
Wrong on all counts.
The JWs have more Gospel proofs than Calvin does. They just interpret it wrong, in a different fashion than the Reformers do.
It is not about Rome. The Church, in the Council of Nicea, declared the NT. The OT was not considered to be required to be declared since all Christians understood it to be what it was - the OT of the Septuagint.
There were many books that were considered Scripture right up until the final Council such as the Acts of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Revelation was not considered Scripture by the East. Etc.
The 1500 years is a straw man because since nobody in their right mind considered the Church canon to be wrong, the Church didn’t officially do anything about it. The same as the Trinitarian doctrine. It wasn’t until the heretics challenged the Trinity that the Church sat down and defined what the Trinity is.
I’d suggest that you remove ‘Rome’ from your vocabulary and substitute the Catholic Church instead. It would be more accurate.
“Let me approach my answer from this point: Do you believe Scripture when it said Christ told Peter whatever he held on Earth would be held in heaven and whatever he loosed on Earth would be loosed in heaven? I believe Christ said that to Peter. In turn, Peter “held” on Earth that that same power to bind or loose was to be passed on to the next head of the Church and so on. If Peter held that, then Christ kept His promise and held it in Heaven too. In a nutshell, Catholics believe that Christ made Peter the authority here on Earth, promised Peter’s spiritual pronouncements would be upheld in Heaven, and that Christ and Peter wanted that authority to pass in succession to the head of the Church until the end of time. All the members of the early Christian Church believed this. St. Paul believed this.”
Breathtakingly wrong. The power to loose and bind was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 “18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”.
Furthermore, the disciples didn’t take it to mean Peter was number one, since they argued over the subject a few chapters later. And instead of saying, “Peter is my Vicar”, Jesus made it clear the whole debate was wrong.
Paul obviously didn’t believe it, since he bumped heads with Peter in Galatians 2. And Peter didn’t believe it, since he was afraid of the men sent by James, also in Galatians 2.
And in passages referring to false teachers, not ONCE did an Apostle write, “Just look to Peter and his Successors - they will know the Truth”.
It doesn’t matter who said it. The point is, the Gospel stands on its own. It requires not church, Catholic or otherwise to speak for it. If one puts their faith in the Gospel because the Catholic Church moved them to do so, then I fear their faith isn’t whole. Faith comes through the Gospel of our Lord; not through a church.
chesley: As a saved Christian, Christ is the mediator between God and me
Chonos: Christ IS God. He is not a created being, not an “avatar”, not a “lesser god”.
God: “5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” — 1 Timothy 2.5-6
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.