“Would you concede that is the case? None of the Definitions used at Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon were found in the NT.”
Sure. And here we simply come full circle to the supremacy of God’s Word as the only judge of whether something is true. If something is Christian truth, it will pass the test as true.
None of the terms add to Scripture. No problem.
aMorePerfectUnion:
Well, it appears some of that Catholic thought has not totally left you!! From the bible alone, you can’t get those Doctrinal Definitions. That does not mean, they are inconsistent with Scripture but as you noted, you did do some studying of Church History and the entire Arian crisis started due to Arius’s interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 and its prefiguration to St. John’s Gospel prologue and the Word became Flesh [John 1: 1-14].
So individuals and the Bible alone can, as demonstrated in history, lead to heretical doctrines. So in my view, the Arian crisis and how the Church dealt with it reflects the Church, and the reading and understanding of the Scripture in light of the theological development within the Church as expressed via the Patristic consensus and how the Church worshiped in Liturgy, which both reflect the Tradition of the Church, all worked together at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the Arian heresy.
The Church used both tools, the Scripture and Tradition to formulate its Doctrine against Arius and his followers. The Bible alone [Sola Scriptura] does not get you to the Nicene Creed’s Definition in Latin of Consubstantial union of Christ with the Father.