Name one doctrine that is not supported by Scripture.

[GodsGrace101]

We should. God should be used to refer to all three persons of the Holy Trinity. I think using God to refer to only the Father is dangerous as it can lead one towards a semi-Arian spirituality in which the benefits of Trinitarian thought are lost. We should also pray to all three persons by name. It is important that we read and study the Nicene Creed, which is the CF.com Statement of Faith, and the doctrine of the Trinity, and contemplate God as a union of three persons, the Father unoriginate and the Son and the Spirit uncreated, all three coequal and sharing the same divine essence.

Also, the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite theological principle of Communicatio Idiomatum, which was also heavily used by Lutherans in the Reformation in their dispute with certain Protestant groups which disappeared from the mainstream, and is accepted by most Lutheran, Anglican and other Protestant theologians who study Christology in depth, allows us, because in Christ, who is fully God and fully Man, our human nature is in hypostatic union with the divine nature of the Holy Trinity, without change, comingling, confusion, separation or division, according to Ephesus and Chalcedon, to attribute any properties of one of the two natures to the other. Thus, we can say a man was Transfigured, Resurrected, and Ascended to Heaven, and God was born of the Virgin Mary, and God died on the cross and was buried, or vice versa. This is the amazing truth about the Incarnation of God.

Therefore we should celebrate the Incarnation by calling Mary the Mother of God, and remembering that Christ was both God and Man when we consider His passion and death on the Cross, and His resurrection. The risk that someone could misinterpret us as meaning that Mary was the mother of the Holy Trinity should not concern us, because people will misinterpret anything we say anyway, for the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world.

You're the one who doesn't want to divide the Trinity.
So how would YOU explain that each Person has its very own personality and has His very own tasks to fulfill?

God, the BEING THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE, does not have a mother.

The Trinity is most difficult to explain and/or to understand.
I hope that you know that however you'd wish to explain the Trinity to someone it would be wrong.
Every explanation is a heresy in one way or another.

The triangle
The water in 3 forms
The human that is a father, brother, son
etc.
are all incorrect explanations.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've read all your posts to me and am sorry for the delay in responding.
I acknowledge that you're very familiar with the bible and with creeds - I'm sure you're familiar with all of them.

Two questions:

1. Why do you keep bringing up the SoF of this forum? (CFnet).

So you can see the Nicene Creed with convenient scripture references.

2. You stated in one post that it's prohibited to say that Jesus Christ and the 2nd Person of the Trinity are two separate persons. Apparently, you understand the Trinity to the inth degree. So explain this:
When Jesus was on Earth, where was the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

On Earth, and everywhere else, as believed by everyone else, including Nestorius.

Also, you have no deep knowledge of my beliefs and no authority over me as to how I understand the Trinity....It is my belief that I have stated NOTHING that does not agree with any Creed. I'm sorry you may believe so, but this does not concern me.

I don’t claim any authority over your beliefs. I do however feel you should consider clarifying your position, because right now it does not appear to me based on what you have said, that believe in the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ, and since you have on several occasions mentioned your belief that Jesus Christ is not the second person of the Trinity, which also seems to contradict John 1:1-18, I think it would be helpful if you did clarify that.

 

[The Liturgist]

So what does BEGOTTEN mean??

I'm sure you're aware that some theologians reject that it means BORN because it would imply that the 2nd Person, the Son, did not always exist. These theologians agree that it means UNIQUE...and I posted from Strong's to show this meaning in the Greek word.

The most common explanation I see is that our Lord is eternally begotten of the Father, outside of time, just as the Spirit eternally proceeds from Him. This makes sense, because John 1:2 states that by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, all things were made; this obviously includes time.

 

[The Liturgist]

You really should read my posts more carefully.

Rather than posting that, which is unhelpful, why don’t you clarify your triadological perspective. I mean, there’s no need for us to get worked up over this. If you say you believe the Nicene Creed I believe you. I am just confused by your repeated statements that the Second Person of the Trinity is not Jesus Christ.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're the one who doesn't want to divide the Trinity.
So how would YOU explain that each Person has its very own personality and has His very own tasks to fulfill?

The three persons are distinct but not divided, because of their consubstantiality (homoousios), translated in the creed as “of one essence with the Father.” If we allow division into the Trinity, we fall into tritheism.

God, the BEING THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE, does not have a mother.

Right, that’s what Nestorius said, initially. Later he claimed he agreed with the Council of Chalcedon, which did uphold the doctrine of the Theotokos, so that makes him unreliable in that respect.

However insofar as Christ was born and Christ is as the creed says, very God of very God, most Christians who study triadology reject Nestorianism and believe that Jesus Christ has a mother, because of the principle of communicatio idiomatum.

The Trinity is most difficult to explain and/or to understand.
I hope that you know that however you'd wish to explain the Trinity to someone it would be wrong.
Every explanation is a heresy in one way or another.

The triangle
The water in 3 forms
The human that is a father, brother, son
etc.
are all incorrect explanations.

I disagree insofar Christian church agree with the explanation in the Nicene Creed. The only complex issue is terminology related to Christology and the Incarnation. Also, every explanation of the Trinity is not heresy, even if it is inadequete; heresy specifically means a belief agreed upon by the Christian church as false. And note I have not accused you of heresy, or anything else.

Furthermore, I do agree with you insofar that God in his divine essence, as argued by St. Basil the Great, in the 4th century, is incomprehensible, and we can only comprehend His divine energies.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[GodsGrace101]

So you can see the Nicene Creed with convenient scripture references.



On Earth, and everywhere else, as believed by everyone else, including Nestorius.



I don’t claim any authority over your beliefs. I do however feel you should consider clarifying your position, because right now it does not appear to me based on what you have said, that believe in the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ, and since you have on several occasions mentioned your belief that Jesus Christ is not the second person of the Trinity, which also seems to contradict John 1:1-18, I think it would be helpful if you did clarify that.

It's not something easily explained.
Jesus is The Son, the 2nd person, incarnated.
When Jesus was on earth, the 2nd Person was still with Father and did not leave His "post".
You understand this as omnipresence which is fine.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The most common explanation I see is that our Lord is eternally begotten of the Father, outside of time, just as the Spirit eternally proceeds from Him. This makes sense, because John 1:2 states that by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, all things were made; this obviously includes time.

Of course it includes time.
Can't get beyond the Big Bang....for this very reason.

But you didn't answer what begotten means.
In the English language its most common meaning is BORN. Do you believe the 2nd Person was born?
Which would mean He didn't always exist...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Rather than posting that, which is unhelpful, why don’t you clarify your triadological perspective. I mean, there’s no need for us to get worked up over this. If you say you believe the Nicene Creed I believe you. I am just confused by your repeated statements that the Second Person of the Trinity is not Jesus Christ.

Jesus is God incarnate.
But Jesus did not always exist as JESUS, did He?
He was born 2,000 years ago.
He is Immanuel,,,God with us.
The 2nd Person always existed.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The three persons are distinct but not divided, because of their consubstantiality (homoousios), translated in the creed as “of one essence with the Father.” If we allow division into the Trinity, we fall into tritheism.



Right, that’s what Nestorius said, initially. Later he claimed he agreed with the Council of Chalcedon, which did uphold the doctrine of the Theotokos, so that makes him unreliable in that respect.

However insofar as Christ was born and Christ is as the creed says, very God of very God, most Christians who study triadology reject Nestorianism and believe that Jesus Christ has a mother, because of the principle of communicatio idiomatum.



I disagree insofar Christian church agree with the explanation in the Nicene Creed. The only complex issue is terminology related to Christology and the Incarnation. Also, every explanation of the Trinity is not heresy, even if it is inadequete; heresy specifically means a belief agreed upon by the Christian church as false. And note I have not accused you of heresy, or anything else.

Furthermore, I do agree with you insofar that God in his divine essence, as argued by St. Basil the Great, in the 4th century, is incomprehensible, and we can only comprehend His divine energies.

I hope that clears that up.

Sure.
Sometimes spiritual matters are most difficult to understand or to explain. I believe we agree but maybe in or minds we might comprehend in some different way.

I in no way meant that you were stating that I was saying something heretical. Just to undetstand, if you explain the Trinity using the water idea, it's sabellianism because it DOES divide the Persons...as you rightly object to.
However , some way must be found when teaching kids, so we do our best. This is all I meant by my comment on heresies.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Interesting. Thank you.

The cannon of scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

In the English language

which is why most protestants misinterpret scripture. Sola Scriptura error creator at it's best

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

The cannon of scripture.

This is true. I like this one. Typically because Enoch is one of my favorite books, but my Church doesn't accept it, but the Egyptians do. I also like Sirach. It has some gorgeous Psalms and a prophesy of Christ.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

which is why most protestants misinterpret scripture. Sola Scriptura error creator at it's best

I would hope that most Protestants know that neither English translations nor the English language is authoritative (Divinely inspired)? But, who am I to say? I'm learning a lot about Protestants that I didn't know since being on CF.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would hope that most Protestants know that neither English translations nor the English language is authoritative (Divinely inspired)? But, who am I to say? I'm learning a lot about Protestants that I didn't know since being on CF.

I enjoy Luther's translation which, of course, was in German, not English.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I enjoy Luther's translation which, of course, was in German, not English.

Ah. Still not inspired though.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Only the original copies were inspired (in a synergistic sense)

 

[The Liturgist]

It's not something easily explained.
Jesus is The Son, the 2nd person, incarnated.
When Jesus was on earth, the 2nd Person was still with Father and did not leave His "post".
You understand this as omnipresence which is fine.

Ok, now I understand you. That’s Nestorian, but its Nicene, so I can’t object, although I do suggest you look into the rationale for the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon rejecting the view Nestorius, because I do believe they offers a better explanation for everything. The Assyrians are basically Chalcedonian but prefer to call our Lord the Mother of Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah. Still not inspired though.

It depends on who you talk with.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is true. I like this one. Typically because Enoch is one of my favorite books, but my Church doesn't accept it, but the Egyptians do. I also like Sirach. It has some gorgeous Psalms and a prophesy of Christ.

The Ethiopians accept it, and they were until the 20th century an autonomous church under the Coptic Pope, but the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, that is to say, the Egyptian part worshipping using the Coptic Rite liturgy, does not.

 

[GodsGrace101]

which is why most protestants misinterpret scripture. Sola Scriptura error creator at it's best

I agree that Protestantism has its problems.
Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, just means that only scripture is used as the sole authority as to doctrine.

Problem is...too many denominations...too many differing ideas.
Yes, this is problematic.

If we want to search deeper, you and I would have to agree that even within Catholicism there is an outer veneer of agreement on all doctrine, but going deeper we find that not all priests agree on all issues.
I don't use the word theologian because I don't believe a Catholic theologian CAN disagree with a doctrine, at least openly.