The Council of Nicea as theological Rorschach Test (Find out What Type of Christian you are)

The Council of Nicea as theological Rorschach Test

Posted By Eric Sammons On June 4, 2010 @ 7:21 am In The Church | 5 Comments

As most Catholics know, Vatican II was held 40 years ago and in many quarters is still controversial. But this should surprise no one; the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea, was held almost 1700 years ago and it is still controversial today. It has been upheld as the standard of orthodoxy, derided as an intervention of the state into Church affairs, and accused of being the origin for both a belief in Christ’s divinity and the pope’s primacy. The Vatican II Fathers had nothing on the bishops at Nicea when it comes to controversy!

Even after all these centuries, Nicea is still important. Not only did it express in clear language the divinity of Christ (something believed before the Council, of course), but also it demonstrates the authority of the Church to make such authoritative declarations. By attacking Nicea, those who wish to reshape the Church or change her doctrines know that they can make great progress in their cause.

With that being said, blogger Darrell Pursiful ^[1] has a great – and fun – test to determine what your religious beliefs are, all based on your attitude towards the Council of Nicea ^[2]:

How would you complete this sentence? “The Council of Nicea…”
1. “…was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit, codifying for all time the true apostolic teaching on the person and nature of Christ.”
You are a conservative Catholic or Orthodox Christian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
2. “…was a good thing, and it may even be said that the Holy Spirit was in it, leading the church to affirm Christ’s full divinity and humanity in terms that have stood the test of time. Shame about those anathemas at the end.”
You are a run-of-the-mill conservative Christian. If you’re Protestant, you can probably recite the Four Spiritual Laws. If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, I bet you’ve had some interesting discussions with some of your fellow parishioners.
3. “…contextualized the Christian message for a Greco-Roman audience. In those terms, I have no problems with it, although I do cross my fingers at certain points when (if) I recite the Creed in church.”
You are a centrist or liberal Christian in a mainline denomination. You probably subscribe to The Christian Century and wear a jacket with elbow patches.
4. “…is irrelevant to my faith. It was just some bunch of Catholic bigwigs asserting their authority over plain, Bible-believing Christians like me. Of course I believe in the Trinity, why do you ask?”
You are a fundamentalist Christian. And you need to take a church history course.
5. “…is irrelevant to my faith. It was just some bunch of Catholic bigwigs asserting their authority over plain, Bible-believing Christians like me. Of course I deny the Trinity, why do you ask?”
You are a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or similar. And you need to take a church history course.
6. “…was the final nail in the coffin of the inclusive spirituality of Jesus, replacing theological diversity and egalitarianism with patriarchal regimentation and the silencing of all dissent. Oh, and they wrote the New Testament.”
You are a pagan or Gnostic who appreciates the teachings of Jesus—at least the ones that conform to your religious presuppositions—although you distrust most traditional, institutional forms of Christianity. You need to take a church history course, and you need to quit reading Dan Brown books.
7. “…was the final nail in the coffin of the Judaic faith of Yeshua ha-Mashiach, replacing Torah-observance and traditional Jewish piety with syncretistic pagan mythology. Oh, and they wrote the New Testament.”
You are an Ebionite. You appreciate the teachings of JesusYashuaYehoshuaYeshua—at least the ones that conform to your religious presuppositions—but want nothing to do with Christianity or the New Testament as classically defined. The Greek language probably makes you break out in hives.

Hopefully, readers of this blog should know how I answered this quiz. I’ll give you a hint, however: it didn’t take me long to find my answer.

H/t: The Way of the Fathers ^[3]

Article printed from Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons: http://ericsammons.com/blog

URL to article: http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/06/04/the-council-of-nicea-as-theological-rorschach-test/

URLs in this post:

[1] Darrell Pursiful: http://pursiful.com/

[2] all based on your attitude towards the Council of Nicea: http://pursiful.com/2010/06/the-council-of-nicea-is-a-theological-rorschach-test/

[3] The Way of the Fathers: http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2010/06/03/quiz-time/

Click here to print.

For Protestants, these councils may be true to doctrine of the scriptures or may be renegade. Scriptures are the test of all doctrine and therefore those doctrines of the roman church may be untrue when studied in the light of the Scriptures of God's Christ. Therefore, the church councils may or may not be true to God's Word.
For catholics of the roman church, the decisions of the ecumenical councils are infallible and irrevocable, therefore many roman catholics preach a false gospel of salvation as is evident to Bible believing Christians. Many are the enemies of God Almighty because of the lies they believe to be true.
[16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,] All doctrine not supported by scripture is therefore heresy and God condemns heresy. 2 Timothy 3 1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

OK, GonzoII. First, to your objection that this Biblical passage is Old Testament. You can't possibly be serious in thinking that this passage, stating as it does that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God could possibly have been negated by anything in the New Testament. Nothing in the Old was negated by the New. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Law, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He brought a New Covenant, meaning that those in Him as Christians were and are redeemed through Him, no longer under the Law. That did not wipe out the meaning, significance or impact for non-Christians of that Law.

Now, on to the passage itself. We're talking about scripture, clearly, with Sola Scriptura. First, we have All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, meaning both Old and New Testaments. This means it's literally of God, it's The Word, superior to any tradition of man or teaching of man, especially those that do not withstand scrutiny via studying and understanding scripture, the Bible itself.

This leads to the next portion of the passage, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Doctrine comes from the Bible itself, according to the Bible. As if this alone weren't enough to justify Sola Scriptura, we're further instructed to use the Bible for reproof. Reproof means to correct error, to rebuke, to provide constructive criticism. We're also instructed to use the Bible for correction. Then, we're instructed to use the Bible for instruction in righteousness.

The next passage goes on to instruct us that anyone so equipped is complete, or in your preferred translation, perfect, for every good work.

The plain language makes it plain that the Bible is in and of itself more than just sufficient to provide, not just for our own Salvation, but to go out into the world and work to bring others to Salvation as well.

It's not profitable for you to seek to prove otherwise.

"OK, GonzoII. First, to your objection that this Biblical passage is Old Testament."

This passage is often used to defend Sola Scriptura, it gives no list of books, so how do you know which books are inspired, certainly you admit that these verses refer to the Old Testemant? It is up to you determine from these verses how the New Testament is inspired without refereing to the New Testament itself as proof because you are holding this as a defence of Sola Scriptura which belief includes the New Testament.

"Nothing in the Old was negated by the New. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Law, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He brought a New Covenant, meaning that those in Him as Christians were and are redeemed through Him, no longer under the Law. That did not wipe out the meaning, significance or impact for non-Christians of that Law."

You are referring to the New Testament for authority but as yet have not proven its inspiration/authority.

"First, we have All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, meaning both Old and New Testaments."

The texts are clearly referring to the Old Testament as Timothy was in his infancy when he read the Scriptures Paul is talking about, there is no way this refers to the New Testament. How do you know which books of the Bible are inspired? Indeed those of the Old Testament itself? Paul does not specify.

That is circular reasoning. There needs to be an external authentication for the fact of inspiration, any book could then be written claiming to be the word of God.

Can you tell me which books of the Bible are inspired? Do you have list?

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.