Posted on 08/11/2017 10:41:52 PM PDT by boatbums
Summary
The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.
The conversation intensified quickly. “You can’t really trust the Bible,” my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, “because you really don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others.” A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something “went wrong,” where some group of unnamed, faceless men “decided” for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.1
I was reminded how often the phrase “the Council of Nicea” is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the “beginning of the Trinity” or the “first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching.” Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.
I'm sorry but I just get totally lost in this philosophy. There isn't anything in scripture you could provide is there?
The flesh of the Son is not God, but only the express image of him that is invisible.
Paul states (among other things):
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Isaiah 9:6.... do you think that God the Father is not anywhere in that verse?
A better question is do you not believe that the verse is talking about Christ in calling Him the Eternal Father? These are, according to Isaiah, names ascribed to the Messiah. After all, they made a musical of it.
You see, it wasn’t the power of the flesh that walked on water, multiplied bread and fish at the speed of light, or any of the other miracles. The flesh profiteth nothing. So when you believe that “the Word was made flesh”, you should realize that the flesh became the habitation of the Word of God.
It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh.
By assuming that because “the Word was God”, and “the Word was made flesh”, God is therefore not just Spirit, but also flesh, you justify calling the Son: God the Son, because the Son appeared in the flesh, and the Father has not appeared in the flesh. The same reasoning is why Mary is mistakenly regarded as the “Mother of God”.
And your point is...?
At least I took the time to some book-learnin’
Let’s hope that you will also pay attention to the vast, rich history of Christian reflection, instead of all these no-namers.
I think that is a fair assumption given the fact that you believe our Lord Jesus was a created being in much the same fashion as Adam. And, if so, then it is totally unfair for you to complaint about our Catholic friends using external sources when in fact, Mormons have the Book of Mormons in addition to scripture. There is a certain level of hypocrisy that only you can search your heart to say whether it is true. You imply your not but you still won't own up to anything.
You show several sources you say influenced your scriptural understanding on your about page. I was surprised to not find this posted or a link to it. I have highlighted a couple of areas that I find troubling.
Quite frankly, I haven't looked at my page for many years. I should go back and check it as some of the links may have disappear.
This is what the catholic faith teaches.
To be perfectly honest this is tame by comparison to some of the things I have posted using their own encyclopedia. The problem, as I see it, is that our Catholic friends have wandered away from the truth. And, they make no bones about it in their encyclopedia writing such sayings as the early fathers got it wrong or we have a better understanding today. They evolve their understanding rather than simply trying to understand what God has revealed. People are never satisfy with the scriptures. They simply want more.
But that aside, the Trinity has always been a mystery and supported in the earliest writings including the scriptures. Creeds are a doctrinal summary meant to help our understanding of a theological true. But they are NOT scripture themselves. There have been some crummy creeds. If you find a creed to be not helpful, then you should seek clarification through the scriptures. Given that many Christians accept a given creed, should be a warning to each of us that we may be wandering into heretical minefields by rejecting a creed.
While I don't like the wording of this creed, I understand the theology it's trying to convey. As one example, I would not have used and according to Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or lords. Christian would never say that to begin with for we know it's not true.
You'll find that our Catholic friends pick and choose what they would like to say at any given time. They love the church fathers but as soon as a father disagrees-oops. But they are a jolly good sort.
However, it is FAR dangerous to say Christ is a created being. I would recommend a serious study of the scriptures and prayerfully asking the Holy Spirit to open the eyes. He is our God and Savior who gave His life for us-not because of anything that we have done or could do, but because of His loving grace. It is because of Him that we can walk in newness of life. I would recommend starting at Ligonier.org for some good solid teaching from God's word.
Wow that is one stupendously incoherent reply! What does “synchrotistic paganism” even mean? BTW I am not Catholic.
Like Charles Rutherford, Joseph Smith, and a myriad of other cultists were “directed by the Holy Spirit” No thanks - I’ll take historic Christianity any day. You are the one who is imbibing the “tainted kool-aid” of your belief in your own infallibility.
**I’m sorry but I just get totally lost in this philosophy. There isn’t anything in scripture you could provide is there?**
“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. John 6:63
The words you speak define you. The Son said his words were not his, but the Father’s (John 12:49,50).
Now when one, that is under the guidance of the Spirit of God, speaks, that person is not speaking of himself, but for God. The Son operated almost constantly in that fashion. There are are very few instances where his will tried to speak, such as: “..Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.” Mark 14:36
if you don’t have the Holy Spirit directing your life, shame on you on judgment day. The “I just did what my priest told me” defense will sound pretty weak with a Bible available to you.
If it is incoherent to you at this point, you have a comprehension issue we need to resolve.
I wondered if I could simplify this for you and then I remembered the adage, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
So, let's start with teaching you to fish.
What does “synchrotistic paganism” even mean?
Instead of whining, which is unbecoming to a FReeper, you should use Google to find definitions of words.
**Paul states....Col. 1:16 “For by him were all things created..”**
Why did you not also highlight “the firstborn of every creature” in the previous verse?
How do you address the heretofore avoided Isaiah 42:1-7, especially verse 5?
Paul, under inspiration, also said this:
“But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we IN him; and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we BY him.” 1Cor. 8:6
Another witness:
“Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the FATHER of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of HIS OWN WILL begat HE us with the WORD of TRUTH, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures”. James 1:17,18
The Son is the express image of God, the firstborn of every creature. The first being that is both Spirit and flesh. By his existence, and the power of God his Father, all of the rest of creation was brought about.
**A better question is do you not believe that the verse is talking about Christ in calling Him the Eternal Father?**
When the end comes, Christ will deliver “up the kingdom to God, even the Father..” (1Cor. 15:26). How does that fit with your coequal persons theory?
I just keep it simple: Christ said the Father is in him doing the works. When is the Father not in the Son?
Nobody has ignored your passage. Here it is in toto:
Matthew even quoted that when referring to Jesus:
In Isaiah 61, the prophecy was given:
Jesus read that passage in the synagogue as recorded in Luke 4:16-21)
The rest of Isaiah's prophecy is still to be fulfilled, "to proclaim ...the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn."
All this demonstrates to us that Jesus is the promised one, the anointed one, the Christ/Messiah. He was able to do this because He was God in the flesh, God WITH US. The Father didn't cease to exist when this happened nor did the Holy Spirit. They were all, and have all, existed from eternity. The incarnation occurred in time, where God stepped into our dimension and took on human flesh so that "The Word became flesh and took up residence among us"; "Therefore, since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."
Nobody is avoiding anything here, the Lord Almighty will not share His glory with another, He is the ONLY GOD and Savior and besides Him there is NO other. That's how we know that Jesus IS God. Not some man that became "a" god. Not a created superbeing that was exalted. Not an angel that got bumped up the exaltation chain. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the one, true God.
Okay, NOW I'm done.
I have learned a lot from no namers. I have read very little of first or second century writers. I have read stuff from guys like Ryrie, Sproul, Walter Martin, and others, but I ALWAYS measure what they say, by the scriptures.
Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I don't, but since I quit the Catholic Church, I am my own pope. I may agree, or disagree on a variety of issues, but the ONLY issue that matters, is the plan of salvation. Nothing else is as important as that. I have no intention of coming up on the short end of the stick. If others do, that's on them.
Do you accept the doctrine of the Binary?
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that...
Genesis 1:26
There is a least two here.
Amen. That's more important than a persons name or title. God is no respecter of persons meaning these "names" or celebrities are judged by their actions and what's inside them not some fancy title. God determines who is/isn't a saint and not some self important denomination.
What JESUS did NOT read...
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all that mourn;
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.