St Paul didn't support sola scriptura. (2)

SolomonVII · Feb 21, 2012

Montalban said:
What 4 words are you talking about anyway?

Who are 'they'?

"and (from] the Son."

Fireinfolding · Feb 21, 2012

Montalban said:
I'll try this again - is the Nicea Creed an 'addition' to scripture?

Yes, or no.

If

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 22, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
My sister just come to the Lord and I told her not to join the forums

I am sending her examples as to why (so it makes sense to her) so I chose this thread as one of a few that is going to her

To convince her not to, so I thank you Montalban

Questions: Is her faith not strong enough?

Why are you here if it's so bad?

The Creed: It's not an addition to Scripture, but a confession of the faith required for salvaition, as expressed in Scripture. With or without the one word, not four "Filioque" (and the Son) it is correct and true; as is the Apostles Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

The Nicene Creed is the statement of faith of Christian Forums (with and without the Filioque); if one does not agree with it, one should not be posting in this Forum: see the rules. This rule is non negotiable. :preach:

Montalban · Feb 22, 2012

SolomonVII said:
"and (from] the Son."

That's known as one word ... filioque. Words are important.

Montalban · Feb 22, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
If

I am no closer to knowing where you stand on this.

Montalban · Feb 22, 2012

MarkRohfrietsch said:
The Creed: It's not an addition to Scripture, but a confession of the faith required for salvaition, as expressed in Scripture. With or without the one word, not four "Filioque" (and the Son) it is correct and true; as is the Apostles Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Aside from the rule thingy...

I don't think it's an addition either. But I'd like to know if some think it is... after-all, if they believe that scripture itself is sufficient - why have 'creeds'?

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 22, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
My sister just come to the Lord and I told her not to join the forums

I am sending her examples as to why (so it makes sense to her) so I chose this thread as one of a few that is going to her

To convince her not to, so I thank you Montalban

Montalban said:
Aside from the rule thingy...

I don't think it's an addition either. But I'd like to know if some think it is... after-all, if they believe that scripture itself is sufficient - why have 'creeds'?

Well, it's easier than reciting the whole Bible... from memory!

Montalban · Feb 22, 2012

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Well, it's easier than reciting the whole Bible... from memory!

Certainly, but I wonder if people think 'formulae' and 'creeds' are 'additions to'

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 22, 2012

Montalban said:
Certainly, but I wonder if people think 'formulae' and 'creeds' are 'additions to'

Some do, and they see our Confessions and Catechisms as such because the "userp" private interpretation and revelation.

SolomonVII · Feb 22, 2012

Montalban said:
That's known as one word ... filioque. Words are important.

You asked for clarification on which four words I believe this is what squint was talking about.
As for my opinon, squint sums it up rather well.

I refuse to play on the grounds of 4 words defining the entirety God in Christ and then having to claim each others heretics over it. Seems rather pointless. They both forgot the appearance of God in Christ is a great mystery.

squint · Feb 22, 2012

SolomonVII said:
You asked for clarification on which four words I believe this is what squint was talking about.
As for my opinon, squint sums it up rather well.

I spent a long time studying the positions of the Nicene Creed, it's development, how the conclusions were arrived at, why they are important, why they were deployed, and from that I learned to respect the efforts of those who sat down and deliberated those matters, which were deliberated from the scriptures and in comparisions to various alternative reasonings that sprang forth early in Christianity.

I adhere to and greatly respect those basics not because some sect stuck them in my mouth, but because I sat down and deliberated with them myself and followed the tracks of their seekings. I know why those determinations were made, why they are necessary to understand and why they should not be varied from. To others who have no interest, they are to some effect, words that are stuck in their mouths to adhere to 'traditional requirements.' In such they may be less appreciated. Not for me to judge.

Most of us here have been led into greater interests by a Divine internal leading or we wouldn't be here, sharing(?)

From the E.O. posters here I have learned to appreciate the fact they are quite substantially different in their overall approaches than the R.C.C. for example. Not saying I'd bow to their whole enchilada, but seeing some of the basic background work they are much more cognizant of the 'personal engagement' factor rather than the 'shove it down your throat and obey only my determinations' path.

But unfortunately in many sects there are hardliners who can't seem to get over themselves and such think they have everything in some tidy little package that they can use to beat others into submission with.

I consider that to be kind of a waste of time myself.

s

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 22, 2012

Originally Posted by Montalban That's known as one word ... filioque. Words are important.

SolomonVII said:
You asked for clarification on which four words I believe this is what squint was talking about.
As for my opinon, squint sums it up rather well.

That word was also brought up on this thread....never really understood it that much :sorry:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-87/#post43632413

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Standing Up · Feb 22, 2012

The filioque wasn't part of the first creed, but added.

In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking churches of Western Europe added the words "and the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.
Nicene Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creeds aren't scripture. One hopes they're accurate, but they are tradition.

In this dispute, we can also see the authority question raised: Is it a pope or is it a council that has the final say?

I suppose the issue is really the question of the authority of scripture as the rule of faith. IOW, as men made these creeds and empowered them, they became slaves to different masters.

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

Montalban said:
I am no closer to knowing where you stand on this.

And you wont be if you will not answer my "if" ^_^

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

Montalban said:
Certainly, but I wonder if people think 'formulae' and 'creeds' are 'additions to'

And they can only wonder until someone answers their "if's" ^_^

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

squint said:
But unfortunately in many sects there are hardliners who can't seem to get over themselves and such think they have everything in some tidy little package that they can use to beat others into submission with.

I consider that to be kind of a waste of time myself.

s

Seen that before

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 22, 2012

Standing Up said:
The filioque wasn't part of the first creed, but added.

In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking churches of Western Europe added the words "and the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.
Nicene Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creeds aren't scripture. One hopes they're accurate, but they are tradition.

In this dispute, we can also see the authority question raised: Is it a pope or is it a council that has the final say?

I suppose the issue is really the question of the authority of scripture as the rule of faith. IOW, as men made these creeds and empowered them, they became slaves to different masters.

BTW, the third article regarding the Holy Spirit, and Sanctification, was a later addition as well. The purpose of it's original form was as a statement against Arianism. The later addition of the third article changed the creed from just a statement against Arianism to a comprehensive, universal statement of faith.

I think we need to accept that it was edited for clarification.

Arianism continued to persist for some time, and this resulted in the drafting and adoption of a "third" Ecumenical Creed, also based on the teachings of Athanasius; see if this one suits you better

:

The Athanasian Creed

Written against the Arians.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one 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 coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. 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 there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. 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 before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully 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 in 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 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 an account of 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.

Speaking of clarification...

Fireinfolding said:
And you wont be if you will not answer my "if"

I think you should either clarify your "if", or drop it. Right now, it's baiting, and that's against the rules.

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Questions: Is her faith not strong enough? Why are you here if it's so bad?

Sorry I missed this one Mark. I had mentioned she had just come to the Lord, so no I dont believe she is strong in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God. And I didnt want her exposed to the endless the debates and doubts cast against the scriptures in favor of men until the word of God is strong in her. She'd be defenseless and unable to defend her newly founded faith, if she cant take up the sword of the Spirit just yet. If you cant stand for something you might fall for anything.

And no its not all bad, but if it was all good you sure wouldnt have a job here ^_^

Besides children are carried about by the winds as a natural part of being young in the Lord whereas I am 24 years old in the Lord and in a different place then she is. Which is as far as I can answer your that second question without what might be considered a rule violation even though I honestly do see it in scripture its something we go through in defense of the gospel.

The Creed: It's not an addition to Scripture, but a confession of the faith required for salvaition, as expressed in Scripture. With or without the one word, not four "Filioque" (and the Son) it is correct and true; as is the Apostles Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Which would be good, because Gods words are true, and if they be Gods words not added to then they too would be true.

And so far I have had no problem with quoting the Word was MADE flesh or the Son was MADE of a woman made under the law so it doesnt appear to have rendered "the word" MADE absolutely illegal. Though it may "appear to" which is why I asked because I do realize you can question the words of God all you want here, but just dont question the creed and I was simply pointing out the apostles used both words (begotten and made) in relation to the same. And I certainly dont see a problem with the apostles choice of words (even though the creed might "appear to") Which is why I asked. But until they ban "the use of" the word as the apostles use it (which I can only guess they have not) since my "If" had not been answered, there appears to be no problem at all. I just dont see it explained, I read, begotten, not made (period). So I can only guess as to why because we dont see the apostles get all word sensitive as folks are today and God forbid one might ask. And when one askes it usually has an intention in so doing.

And after many years here I do very much understand its one of those "rule thingy's" (to borrow Montalban's words) as he well knows. But I also know full well its used to catch people (as is typically done in many places). And really, thats no surpise because such things were done in Jesus day, and so theres nothing new under the sun in employing such methods

Luke 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

And so, of that sorta thing I would also desire to spare my sister from, until she "gets it". And that often comes later.

The Nicene Creed is the statement of faith of Christian Forums (with and without the Filioque); if one does not agree with it, one should not be posting in this Forum: see the rules. This rule is non negotiable.

Yes, and I have agreed to because I get the "jist of" it and I wont make someone an offender for A WORD as others do.

Isaiah 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Now I might not have (as I have witnessed in times past) agreed with HOW it was used as a weapon against good brethren in Christ who have openly confessed the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but chose not to use THE WORD trinity. And were made an offender for much the same thing.

However, I also know that I do not make the rules of this forum (or other forums I might frequent). And so really, sometimes we have to stand back and let them be answerable to God for their harsh treatment of those brethren and perhaps go to these brethren in a more private fashion and support them if we be so inclined.

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

MarkRohfrietsch said:
BTW, the third article regarding the Holy Spirit, and Sanctification, was a later addition as well. The purpose of it's original form was as a statement against Arianism. The later addition of the third article changed the creed from just a statement against Arianism to a comprehensive, universal statement of faith.

I think we need to accept that it was edited for clarification.

Arianism continued to persist for some time, and this resulted in the drafting and adoption of a "third" Ecumenical Creed, also based on the teachings of Athanasius; see if this one suits you better:

Speaking of clarification...

I think you should either clarify your "if", or drop it. Right now, it's baiting, and that's against the rules.

How is asking if baiting at all, its asking an honest question. Especially when I am being asked if they were added to?

I dont even understand what possible rule I would be violating when being pressed for an answer I cannot give until my question is answered laying out the comparisons I showed in an honest fashion.

Fireinfolding · Feb 22, 2012

This is no good, doing this

Mat 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

Prov 12:6 The words of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood: but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them.

Jerm 5:26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

Luke 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him

Isaiah 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snarefor him

St Paul didn't support sola scriptura. (2)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

On and on

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads